Last Year in Marienbad
The Novel in Modern Literary Criticism
Abstract
Novels and the Novelist
by Jas Stormon
Public domain. Copy freely
Language
Behind the written word there is the oral tradition, the echoes go back to the child hearing his mother’s voice saying words they learn to recognize. We can presume thatan issue surrounding criticismstill drawsthat most brilliant mind, George Washington Bush. No matter into what form the novelist shapes a vision, fantasy, lyrical, symbolist, any, its language is a confession of social attitudes, and a criticism of them through their empathy, their sensibility, and their effort not to betray the vision by a lapse of communication. What is interesting in the world if we do not take the pains to make sense of it?—perhaps to improve it? To write about our incoherent world in a deliberately incoherent way is purposeless, hollow, and stupid. If the novelist is exasperated and baffled by the spectacle of a world bedevilled by the greed and selfishness of some, among the poverty and misery of the many, when there has been no time ever before when it is so unnecessary, then what is the point of reading it? No religious, social, aesthetic, or political leader is able to begin to it. If the novelist cannot find imaginative lessons in experience, they are, like the corporate boss, merely adding to the chaos by turning trees into aimless books just for temporary gain, but at a permanent cost to the planet.
There is no longer a need to argue thatthe appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extractionsmells ofone of the most powerful forces in the world. At worst, used sluttishly, with no care adapting to a reality penetrated as deeply as any writer’s good faith, above all, will take them, they weaken still further the most critical of all links with the past and future of our common culture, and add to the chaos and unhappiness of our time.
We will begin by looking at howthe notion of level of criticismdisplays the rich tapestry ofthe one thing in society which could practically survive a nuclear attack. Have we been misled by the notion of the novelist as a camera-eye? Yet, the camera cheats, especially the TV camera, footage snipped into deceptive “soundbites” showing us the mask but not the distorted face behind it. Language itself cheats. Words never convey the whole of an experience, not even the simplest, but if all the novelist conveys of their experience of violence and disorder is its appearance and confused noises, they should give up and leave their readers to get it from the TV set, which can do it better. We can see any number of bombed out houses, but what is the old woman thinking when she caresses an old shoe with a tear or a glare in her eye? Can the novelist express in their choice of words a convincing thought that her determination to go on living, or her despair at life, and find other words to evoke the gesture of love, fond memories, hatred, suggested by the swollen fingers palping an insignificant relic—but a human life. If the writer is moved to write continually about incest, or treachery, it is to be discovered, if anywhere, in their first secret impulses, biological ones, but technical, intellectual, moral habits come later, in the green years of a writer. Then the choice is consciously whether to use verbal tools as a showoff cavorting like a peacock, a careless dilettante, an ignorant amateur, as whatever you will, gaily, tenderly, moved by hatred of his kind. These words are well worn, they have been used again and again, everyone a reservoir of meaning, weighted by the feelings and speculations of centuries of speech and writing, so using them in a new way is no easy task. It is assisted by their vibrating with their own resonances in skilful use, and hindered by their lying continually and shamelessly. Their ambiguities can be ignored or exploited, as Joyce did, but they are always there. Analogously,the bulk of these findingsmay not be subsumed bya very different country. We will begin by looking at howthe notion of level of criticismdisplays the rich tapestry ofthe one thing in society which could practically survive a nuclear attack.
Literature
It is not unjust to speak of an anti-literature, plumped out with talk-fests of astonishing vacuity, ritual abuse of aged hypocrites and philistines, fragments of perished ideologies, and so on. The belief that nothing is so important as to vent our feelings, so unaffected, so bold, so new, is silly. Comparingrelational informationseems incapable of recognizinga corpus of literary tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired Student’s t test. Genius may be a divine sickness, but a hyperactive writer is boring not healthy. What a artificial confusion conveys is not a vision of chaos, but a sense-deadening noise. One communicates something, certainly, by making disordered gestures screaming frothing at the mouth like an epileptic but less than by keeping control of one’s mind and tongue. The laconic sentences Stendhal uses to describe an atrocious act are chilling. In contrast, the noisy style resorted to by modern novelists, even when as worthy of respect as Gunter Grass, create an impression but it lacks subtlety. The effect is closer to Micky Spillane. Empathy with someone mentally damaged is better brought out by showing them through the eyes of those who love them than by verbally imitating their spastic gestures and speech. What in a human being or in society is irretrievably incoherent has to be accepted and passed on in its full absurdity as a measure of incoherence. Otherwise, how can you properly judge it? So far,an unfortunate consequence of our civilization’s historywould have been spoken at a very young age byremarks such as “I read only for pleasure not wisdom” and “I’d rather eat slugs than read Proust” from dilettante readers, who have just graduated from comic books.
The printed book is being overtaken by the new media much as the hand-copied manuscript was overtaken by the invention of print. Obstinacy, like a medieval scholar who disliked the look of a printed page and held on to his parchments, is fatuous. Those of us who think, scholarship can rest only on the habit of private reading and study are already absurdly anachronistic, but no computer can force skills or wisdom into anyone’s head, notwithstanding Hoyle’s Andromeda. It has a psychological cost. The nervous system rejects a forced involvement in a mechanically begotten community. It rebels against the demoralising pressure of information thrust on it from all sides. But no one can live by the habits of a past age, taking refuge in an oasis of silence and privacy. This too has a psychological cost. Comparing these examples with their parasitic Christian counterparts in Augustine and Aquinas, we see thatstatus, security, fame, all of this neurotic society,will eventually break free fromthe TV evangelist’s moral corpus. It is true that the novelist’s situation is more uneasy now. They cannot approach a crowded mass market to sell their efforts as they might to someone happy with a book they have all the time to meditate with. It requires other methods than those used by their longer-winded predecessors. Their impulse is to strip off the traditional novelist’s garb, fill pages with the minute particulars of living or inanimate objects, tell intimate little stories, giggle nervously, bring on new figures, the promiscuous gay, the kind-hearted lush, the unreconstructed young rebel, with or without his psychiatrist, and now and then say something moving. In the discussion of Byzantine diplomacy, following Gibbon,our post-literate society, more than ever before,cannot be arbitrary inany thought by the over 50s, who are likely to form a major stronghold in the inevitable battle for readers.
Though criticism is a favorite topic of discussion amongst readers, novelists and publishers,the subject of criticismmay remedy and, at the same time, eliminatean important part to play in the development of man.
The Novel
It is impossible to talk about the novel without having in our minds the question of whether it is still a living force. Cyril Connolly said that Flaubert, Henry James, Joyce, and Virginia Woolf have finished off the novel. Among the reasons advanced for the novel’s poor health is one it is impossible to brush aside, and as impossible not to respect. It is that the world today is not so much too complex for a novelist to interpret as too abysmally vile. Tolstoy and Stendhal could observe war calmly, with brotherly respect, irony, and in later, more devastating wars, it was still possible for a few novelists to match in depth and energy the narratives of survivors. But what novelist can summon irony and serene understanding to help him resolve the facts of Auschwitz, of Mi Lie, of the Gulags and, yes, of Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay. Places of torture and killing in our day get more common, even where they ought not to be, and the stench of decaying human morality spreads beyond forgiveness? Can human beings make literature from what is inhuman? Knowing what they are doing sane common people, mainly Christians, officially torture and kill their fellow humans, men, women, children, in camps built and approved by our leaders. This reality, life and death in torture camps and our own inhumanity, is hard to communicate, especially to people who do not want to hear it, but has to be to remind them of what they are condoning, and where they are going Crossing many cultural barriers,the heart of the subjectbreaks the mould ofthe system of base rules exclusive of any lexicon. Any novelist who is not a fraud does not offer a copy of the world. They are not being moved to imitate—Tolstoy did not imitate Russian social and family life, nor Joyce life in Dublin. The novelist’s impulse is to create an alternative world of words, but paradoxically not necessarily a beautiful or ugly illusion, a lie, but one which dissipates illusion to reveal a community in which the human will and passions can be managed in a social context. Enduring novels are those it is impossible not to put down, because the mind cannot bear so much tension and disturbance without intervals of escape.
One mark of the novel in this country is its parochialism, endearing if you like, but airless and panting. Parochialism is confining one’s interests to a narrow sphere, with indifference to the world outside, or local narrowness of view or petty provincialism. A good novelist can find heaven and hell in a tiny parish, but literary parochialism means minor or trivial interest in the commonplace, like the seduction of a pretty girl by a common lad acting the Don Juan or any one of the stock figures of domestic life in a TV daily soap. Though criticism is a favorite topic of discussion amongst readers, novelists and publishers,the subject of criticismmay remedy and, at the same time, eliminatean important part to play in the development of man. In the great age of the novel, writers felt themselves compelled and competent to offer—a moral vision of human nature caught between the furies of its selfish and primeval instincts and the governing, controlling, but restrictive imperatives of society, through its seemingly inexorable dynamics. That is the singular task of the imaginative writer.
You might also like…
- Last Year In Marienbad Never ending story. Keep refreshing or clicking the button to find out what happens year after year at Marienbad!
- George Polti Plot Generator
- Marienbad Muser: Plot generator Like Marienbad and Polti mixed! More Polti than Marienbad.
- Bishop Ecclesiasticus Christian-like babble generator
- FIBA (Frederick Ignatius Baines Archive) More Holy Bibble generated
- Impeach the war criminals, Bush and Blair—draft letter generator—for you to send
- Or go to the directory index for “The Great Critic Speaks”, Chomsky-like text generator, and more.
