The future of literary criticism

Much of online activity related to literature involves posting quotations from novels, invariably without commentary and attributed to the book's author with the implication that it is a statement of personal belief, sometimes as an authoritative comment on current affairs but mainly as a piquant insight into the human condition. That it is spoken in a specific context by a particular character, or by an anonymous narration protected by aura of the book, is tacitly ignored. This may be an innocent pursuit and not one to censure, but such innocence doesn't end there. Almost every discussion of a novel assumes the book under discussion offers access to something relatable and is the statement of the author enabled by free indirect discourse, the familiar mechanism unique to the novel in which the thoughts of a character are immediately available to third-person narration, comforting the reader like a safety blanket under which there is a secret to be found. Note how often reviews of literary fiction begin with the words About halfway through or Towards the end as if a chink in its book-armour has been discovered through which the secret can be disclosed. Genre fiction doesn't require such attention as the revelation of a secret defines it, which is why genre fiction should be read and not reviewed. Again, there is nothing to censure here. However, Timothy Bewes' Free Indirect: The Novel in a Postfictional Age cites contemporary novelists for whom the lore of literary fiction has become a problem. He quotes an interview with Rachel Cusk in which she says she is not interested in character because she believes character no longer exists, and another with WG Sebald who found the "modes of certainty" in fiction tedious and unacceptable, and while he did not stop writing novels, his narrators do not indulge in omniscience, leading to a perpetual delay of generic revelation. The problem, Bewes says, is not biographical as problems are necessary to the novel, but with what he calls 'instantiation', that is, how ideas in works of fiction are instilled without being explicit:

Just as the color red or green, a quality or attribute, is not named but instantiated by the presence of an apple in a bowl…so ideas in novels have no need of being espoused by a speaker within the work to transport their normative power to the outside.

In order to work, such qualities and attributes must not be explicit ("show don't tell"). What concerns these authors then is the assumptions instantiation brings, assumptions considered necessary to the form but, as Sebald claims, become a self-deceiving knowledge, mere inventions of "a straight line of a trail to calm ourselves down". To seek a less assumptive mode, a withdrawal from the modes of certainty becomes necessary, hence critical doubts about whether certain writers' novels are really novels, with the common rebuke that they have removed fiction from the novel, are lightly disguised autobiograph, or the greatest blasphemy of "writing about writing". This is what Bewes means by "postfictional", not perhaps an end to the novel so much as a development in which the constraints have become more challenging. When the abstraction of instantiation breaks down and fails to correspond to something universal and thereby relatable, it leaves something Bewes defines as the "free indirect" element of a novel. The third author cited in the introduction provides a good example. As a writer and a visual artist, Renee Gladman found that her drawing has the same relation to thought as writing, except the thought of drawing is "conducted by the hand". She wrote but what was produced were drawings.

"I wasn't writing. I was decidedly not-writing; even as I held this pen in my hand, I swore I wouldn't write. I didn't." At the same time, the writing continues by means of a transformation in the relation between its material and immaterial aspects. 

(Trusting to the movement of the hand over the page is something Gabriel Josipovici says in his 1999 book On Trust that writers such as Beckett did when faced with doubts and suspicion about their work.) The product of the Gladman's hand provides the 'thought' of a novel that Bewes is concerned with. If there is "no more fundamental question in literary studies than what a work means, whose thought it is voicing, what it is really saying", what does it mean when "the thought of the work is seen as fundamentally eluding 'the straight line of a trail', how can it become the object of a critical study? How is literary exposition possible?". 

Towards an answer Free Indirect focuses on the work of Lukács and Bakhtin, and while close attention is given to JM Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello, Deleuze's study of cinema provides the theoretical lead, with "free indirect" in cinema being what appears in the frame of the picture. With that comparison in mind, I have to say much of what I have written here gives only a pinhole view of the book. I cannot give an in-depth discussion of the book. Instead, I want to select elements of the book that relate to my concerns and respond to them in future posts. For instance, I wonder if there is confirmation of a crisis in the modes of certainty more generally in the recent proliferation of novels about novelists. I noticed it first when David Lodge and Colm Tóibín produced two novels with Henry James as their subjects. Before that, there were two novels with Dostoevsky as the central character: Coetzee's The Master of Petersburg and Summer in Baden-Baden by Leonid Tsypkin. Damon Galgut's Arctic Summer is about EM Forster, and Lodge and Tóibín have since written biographical novels about HG Wells and Thomas Mann respectively. Moreover, just last month I read Paul Theroux's 2024 novel Burma Sahib following a young Eric Blair as a colonial policeman and the incipient novelist George Orwell. And not just novelists: there also many recent novels about artists, musicians and philosophers. I have written about one or two: Jean Echenoz's Ravel and Lars Iyer's philosophers trilogy featuring surrogates of Wittgenstein, Nietzsche and Simone Weil. While the latter are not biographical they do seek to connect the thought of all three with life in the contemporary world. The turn, if it is one, may indicate awareness of an experience of art that floats free of exposition, something we experience when immersed in a work of art but troubles us because it enables only vague, unsatisfactory definition. As a result, we feel we must tether it to the ground, turning us into either potatoheaded booklovers, knowing reviewers or academics paring their fingernails. A purely fictional artist wouldn't do this because their reported work has only a reported aura. The trend continues accompanied by an increase in critical anxiety with the rise of autofiction in which a version of the living author replaces the biographical figure. If this indicates the future of the novel, what is the future if literary criticism? Perhaps we can respond without reference to any novels or novelists and without any reference to theories or theorists. But perhaps that is exactly what a novel is.

The crisis of narration and the future of the novel, part two

Byung-Chul Han says in The Crisis of Narration that modernity "is animated by a belief in progress" and its narratives "radiate an aura because the future is a phenomenon of distance". This is evident in our reverence for the monuments of modernism, a reverence formed by wonder and anxiety inherent to distance. A new world remains on the horizon. We lack distance in contemporary narration because, Han says, we live "outside of the narrative spell". If we lived inside it, we would not recognise those monuments. According to Han, and Benjamin before him, the rise of the novel marks the undoing of the spell, with the modernist novel emerging in the tension of one world slowly and then very quickly becoming another. The promise of a new world with all its possibilities – scientific rationality, new technologies, political emancipation, and the waning of religious metanarratives essential to all three – determines the tension. What makes the great modernist novels great then is due less to formal or material distinction than a revelation of distance enveloped in aura of the future as the centuries of stony sleep come to an end. Now that new-world promises have been realised, memory of what came before have been erased, hence the interminable fuss about the accessibility of difficult novels and the marketplace dominance of epigonal infantilising narratives. The crisis of narration has arisen in late modernity because it "knows no longing, no vision, no distance". As critical readers we cannot sense distance because we do not know any tension. Instead, formal and material originality have been placed in the foreground and, if appealing to the "experimental" is not enough, we seek an aura in the authority of cultural excrescences such as the Nobel Prize for Literature.

As contemporary narration lacks a future, it has settled into "a mode of 'on and on'". Simon Okotie's The Future of the Novel published a year after Han's book suggests a paradoxical exploration of the future of no future, and this appears to be confirmed when the book lists several other works published from 1927 to 2012 with very similar titles. The first, John Carruthers' essay Scheherazade, or the Future of the English Novel presents a crisis present in the novels of Joyce and Woolf. They endanger the novel by moving away from "objectivity and towards increasingly minute and analytic explorations of inner life". Okotie sketches Arnold Bennett's support for this opinion and Woolf's responses. Criticism of what is now considered to be both a low-point and high-point for the novel reveals an obvious point: the novel's natural state is one of crisis, written on the crest of an era's wave and constantly debated as a vital sign of cultural health. 

The crisis for the novel in our time is that there is no crisis. There is no sense of one in Okotie's account of its history, which begins for him in the aftermath of the Great War and its first theorist, György Lukács. This may come as a surprise to readers of Michael Schmidt's The Novel: A Biography and Steven Moore's The Novel: An Alternative History both of which trace it back centuries. However, a crisis can be detected in Okotie's occasional digressions into autobiography. Inspired by "a vision of infinite possibilities" whilst listening to a performance of Bach cantatas and then reading Kerouac's On the Road, he resigns his office job and moves to Barcelona to pursue the life of a novelist. Against the desk-bound formality of the on and on routine of theory and criticism, there is here the whiff of an existential crisis in the imperative to write. This is always the future of the novel.

The only way we can recognise a crisis (and thereby welcome it) is in attempts to resist the on and on, for example when Giles Foden dismissed JM Coetzee's Diary of a Bad Year as "a piece of radical literary theory" which, he blusters, "is not fiction" (a line that presents only a crisis in literary reviewing). Okotie includes Coetzee's earlier novel Elizabeth Costello, which received similar pushback, as an example (alongside some dubious others) of a new mode for the novel. I would have preferred a more polemical approach full of longing, visions and the invocation of distance, such as Lars Iyer's Nude in your hot tub, facing the abyss, or at least more of the personal digressions, but there is plenty of value in The Future of the Novel for its singular chronology and reference points. Coetzee's novel is discussed with quotations from Timothy Bewes' Free Indirect: The Novel in a Postfictional Age, which I did not know about before and would have been put off by its title anyway, as I assumed it is a regular academic study of the dominant style of Literary Fiction, whose criticism has driven this blog for twenty years. But on reading, I discovered it really is "a piece of radical literary theory" and perhaps one of the most vital literary studies of our time, deserving of posts of its own. Watch this space.

See also part one.