In 2009, Lev Grossman wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Good Novels Don't Have to be Hard." The basic thesis of the article was that, starting in the early 20th century, modernist writers upended literary convention, excoriating plot and prioritizing other aspects of writing; but plot is now making a comeback, and in the future plot will become the centerpiece of literature.

I feel like Grossman's argument is problematic in the same way that most literary revolutonaries' arguments are: instead of destroying an old prejudice they merely reverse it. Grossman sees a prejudice for what he calls "lyricism" over plotting, and, instead of arguing that this prejudice is silly, seems to argue that plot is more important than lyricism. I'm getting somewhat tired of seeing writers gleefully tearing down our old literary shibboleths just to turn around and - with equal gusto - inaugurate new ones of their own. It's an especial shame in this case,  because I don't think lyricism and plot operate all that differently. A good plot operates by taking our expectations over cause and effect, which event will happen next, and upends them in a way that is new but nevertheless seems completely right. The outcome, in a great plot, isn't really what you expected or you didn't get there in the way you expected, but at the end you can't think of a more right way that the plot could have unfolded. Similarly, great lyricism, by which I think Grossman merely means an author's prose, operates by taking our expectations about how language works and subverting them in a way that nevertheless seems eminently right.

I also don't think that the modernists really conformed to this dichotomy - even in the way it was constructed by Grossman. In a later article, he admits that Hemingway and Fitzgerald sometimes constructed plots just as attentively as any genre writer, but  even someone like Woolf - a high modernist if there ever was one - wrote a relatively conventionally plotted novel with Orlando.

Many of these issues derive from the fact that the categories Grossman uses, like "plotting" and "lyricism," don't seem especially well-defined. Sometimes I'm not sure whether he's really talking about plot or narrative - plot being the events that happen in the book and narrative being the way these events are related to us. Grossman argues that the modernists "broke the clear straight lines of causality and perception ad chronological sequence." To Grossman, this means the modernists "broke" plot, but it seems that what they actually broke was conventional narrative. Grossman's mistake is that he thinks that the modernists are interested in plot effects when they are really interested in narrative effects. Modernists didn't take issue with the idea that events follow linear cause and effect relationships as much as they did with the idea that there was this omniscient, unitary perspective that could unify and present these sequences of events in such a tidy fashion. For the modernists, the problem was that the standard omniscient narrator related events in a way that was untrue to lived experience.

I'm kind of sad that I have to be so critical of Grossman; I think that I agree with his general aims. Grossman is a fantasy novelist, and these questions about plot are ones that tend to come up in discussions of "genre" fiction and are often used to belittle such work. I feel like what Grossman is really trying to do is rescue works of sci-fi and fantasy from the genre dustbin they've been assigned. I certainly agree that divvying fiction up into separate genres is somewhat counterproductive, especially since one - rather ironic - side effect has been the emergence of literary fiction as its own discreet genre. This "genrefication" of fiction seems, to have only made literature less diverse, less surprising, and less interesting; it has turned the creation of literature into an exercise in filling certain genre requirements.

              

Skye Ferreira's "Everything is Embarassing"

  Skye Ferreira's new EP, Ghost, came out this October. The record is somewhat chameleonic, its songs shuttling from morose acoustic ballads, like “Sad Dream” and the titular “Ghost,” to electronica, like "Lost in my Bedroom," and punk, like "Red Lips." Many critics find the generic diversity of the EP to be somewhat random and distracting. I, on the other hand, find that the thematic continuity holds the whole thing together, and I generally find the ability to shuffle through genres so effortlessly to be edifying rather than distracting. However, like most critics I find that the last song, “Everything is Embarrassing,” is undeniably the highlight of the record.

                The song is one in which everything fits together seamlessly; the beat is perfectly fitted to the song, the synthesizer comes in at exactly the right moment, there’s the perfect amount of guitar, etc. I’m not sure if  the song is especially innovative or if any of its pieces are all that interesting. For instance, the beat could certainly be spiced up a bit, and the guitar or synthesizer could run away with us a bit more – instead of being used so minimally. However, these changes feel like they would somehow lessen the song. I’m tempted to invoke that old Romantic dictum that art should seem inevitable, inevitable is such a heavy word and it's the song's airiness that makes it so wonderful. Anyway, I'm somewhat obsessed with this song right now, and I'm looking forward to her first album:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jtTeMgWNhA

On Syrian Chemical Weapons

                Recently, reports have come out indicating that regime forces may be planning to put sarin gas in the bombs they drop on rebel troops (and – possibly – rebel held cities). While such an event would undoubtedly lead to tragedy, some commentators seem unsure as to why countries like the United Sates would draw the line at chemical weapons when the Syrian forces have already been so indiscriminate in their attacks on Syrian citizens. After all, it seems somewhat obtuse to worry so much about the means by which Syrian citizens are murdered instead of the fact that they are being murdered. Thus the question becomes why the United States and other Western nations are so up in arms over the question of chemical weapons.

                The most straightforward answer is that the Obama really does believe that the use of chemical weapons is qualitatively different than the use of conventional weapons. This view is far from unreasonable; chemical weapons are banned by international law while weapons like machine guns and conventional bombs are not. The regime’s forces have hardly been circumspect about civilian casualties, but the use of chemical weapons – especially in one of Syria’s densely populated, urban battlegrounds – would likely cause far greater loss of life than has been seen up to this point.

                Another reason that Obama is protesting so much may be as a run up to an intervention. It’s likely Obama has given serious thought to some sort of military intervention in Syria, but most observers have concluded that is reluctant to intervene because any military operation in Syria would present myriad difficulties in its execution. However, it’s possible that the Obama team has decided that the logistical and military difficulties could be overcome, but that it would be politically impossible to get the security council to authorize any sort of intervention. This newest development might change this calculus because, again, the use of chemical weapons is a clear and established violation of international law. Before, Syria excuse its actions as necessary to maintain control over its territory, but now Syria seems to be in the position of taking action that would clearly override its sovereign rights. Western diplomats may be trying to make it as politically difficult as possible for Russia and China to keep blocking a security council approved intervention in the event of a chemical attack.

                Alternatively, Washington may think that the rebels are already winning in Syria, and that it will only be a matter of time until Assad is deposed. This would certainly be the ideal result from the perspective of the United States. Any military operation in Syria would be quite risky, and Washington would certainly prefer to do nothing while still accomplishing its goals. However, the use of chemical weapons might be able to turn the tide against the rebels, and bolster Syria’s faltering government.

                One more factor that should not be forgotten is the effect this issue might have on Iran. If the Assad regime is able to use WMD on its own population, without any significant retaliation from the international community, then the Iranians might begin to discount Obama’s threats of war if they pursue their own WMD as a bluff. It’s possible that the Obama administration is trying desperately to ensure that Syria doesn’t use chemical weapons because they would then be faced with the choice of either starting a war they don’t really want or their threats against Iran losing credibility.