3 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Fableford's avatar

You argue that literature must take formal risks to stay alive - that experimentation is essential for effectiveness. I mean, I can see the argument, is compelling. But you also seem to treat anything experimental as inherently superior, as if breaking form guarantees value. It doesn’t. A novel can scream its innovation from every fragmented sentence and still say nothing new. Formal experimentation isn’t a virtue on its own - it’s a tool sometimes, the quietest structural shifts cut the deepest.

For example, Rachel Cusk’s “Outline” trilogy.

Cusk innovates with a surgical restraint. The books barely have a plot. The narrator almost disappears into the background. Most of the story is told through other people’s monologues. It gives a philosophical ventriloquism a form, radically pared-down and intentionally passive, is the experiment. She replaces narrative structure with a magical mirrored listening, creating a whole new kind of literary intimacy - alienating, hyper-controlled, and oddly moving.

She doesn’t scream “watch me innovate!”She just quietly suffocates the old form until something else starts breathing in the silence.

So here’s the thing: radical doesn’t always mean maximalist. Some of the most destabilising experiments don’t throw out the rulebook, they whisper into it, erase a few lines, and make the reader complicit in the breach. Cusk shows that you can still innovate within tradition without being conservative or backward-looking.

Your framework, as it stands, too easily discard writers like her as “rear-guard”

So maybe it’s not about whether something’s “experimental” or “accessible.” Maybe the real question is: what is the novel risking - formally, emotionally, ideologically - and does that risk destabilise the reader in a way nothing else could? Cusk’s narrator risks self-erasure. That’s a bolder gamble than most textual acrobatics.

Expand full comment
Vanechka's avatar

I have made many arguments some of which cover what you described as well-you just repeated them with a new example, which I appreciate because it could work as an example of subtle innovation within the essay

. I specifically stated I don’t want to advocate for experimentation for everyone other than myself and they should on their own decide the degree required by the work. I champion form + content as one whole. My “framework” leaves plenty of room for different types of innovation. And I never said everyone should do “textual acrobatics” (my favourite writer is Chekhov).

Expand full comment