Transcending Genre
About 20 years ago I wrote a small cookbook called
“Largactyles.” What made this particular homage to the universality of the
culinary aesthetic different from more prosaic texts on the preparation of food
was that all of the recipes were designed around imaginary animal and plant
species. I knew, of course, that since the flora and fauna, which inhabited the
hermetic world illuminated in my manuscript, were entirely my own creation,
there was little chance that anyone was going to tell me that I was preparing
them the wrong way. After all, how could
someone who had never before heard of a Baffin Island Spotted Mullex, possess
enough information about said creature’s anatomy, temperament, and flavor when
broiled for 35-minutes at 400 degrees, to advise me on whether or not my
approach was correct? One would need to have some pre-existing frame of
reference, or prior experience, in order to even establish a position counter
to my own. That no such rhetorical space existed, was a reflection of the
self-contained nature of the edible menagerie that I had constructed like some scale-model
futuristic space vessel, nestled inside a tabasco sauce bottle: its
hermeticism—wrapped in the familiar tropes and enumerations of the recipe book—was
what constituted its singularity and freshness as literature.
Similarly, when one creates a fictional Mount Ararat, where
an ark-load of sharply imagined beings—who have too long withstood the roiling
global seas of one’s consciousness—can finally make landfall, disembark, and
proliferate, it makes little sense to adopt conventions, pertaining to
narrative, character development, or style, culled by someone unfamiliar with
the small, largely unmapped, world over which such edicts are theoretically imposed.
In other words, there can be no generic set of dictates that ought to control
or shape the development of a self-invented universe—whether it be the purview
of a cookbook, or that of some creative reimagining of a well-established
narrative. It should be of little or no consequence that—as in the
aforementioned ‘Largactyles,’ which remained unpublished, vested as it was in
gustatory prose that concealed its true identity as a fanciful exobiological
taxonomy—others may find the material esoteric or opaque. It is not the
responsibility of an artist or writer to landscape her domain to specifications
befitting the most uncomprehending reader in the room.
This same reader may argue, in response, that this
hypothesis endorses self-indulgent practices that lead to solipsistic and
incomprehensible writing. While this may sometimes be the case, it is also
axiomatic that the imposition of conventionalized genre and narrative paradigms
corrals the quirkiness of individual literary expression into small enclosures
built upon the familiarity of clichés and stereotypes. Of course, such
characteristics are not mutually exclusive or binary; like the architecture of
a building, a story may be constructed of unique cladding and foundational materials
but contain repetitive and mundane interior spaces, figuratively comparable to
the tiny efficient rooms inside the typical military academy or community
college.
Moreover, one may take the analogy even further by arguing
that, similar to an architectural structure, a written narrative—of any
kind—must adhere to certain basic laws so that it too can remain standing and
stable enough to avoid disaster. To respond to such a hypothetical argument, I
might point out that, even if a structure is designed for the pyrotechnics of a
sudden collapse, this does not necessarily render it uninhabitable; rather, it
may become a domicile for a group of squatters, or even an entirely different
species. In fact, if fallen tree stumps, rusting airplane fuselages, beached
houseboats, or abandoned apartment buildings in inner cities are any
indication, the continuation of inhabitability can take innumerable forms, not
limited to more conventional ideas that reflect a particular demographic bias.
Even the collapsibility factor that often inhibits experimental narrative may
be conducive to some, as yet, uncharted aesthetic that prizes those very
expository, or extemporaneous, redoubts most likely to implode. Like giant
stars collapsing in on themselves, and giving rise to the paradoxical specters
of black holes, these counterintuitive practices may harbor and nurture
innovations whose eventual development and form may be difficult to extrapolate
rationally; requiring instead, the quantum cogitations of pure intuition to ascertain
what cannot be arrived at through the misleading syllogistics of consensus.
One conceptual prism that may help frame this idea, is to
consider the similarities between free-flowing literary creation and the a-causal
consciousness of dreaming: both emerge from intuitive cogitation, unfettered by
normative standards, geometric logic, or linear chronology. If one dreams of
flying, for example, a common enough
trope with myriad variations, one’s exhilaration, or even fright, is not
determined by whether the idioms preferred by the delirious imaginarium of the
dreamer conform to a standardized index of symbols, or narratives. The dream takes
its own form regardless. The oneiric mind’s
integrity in presenting variations on inner landscapes is derived from the fact
that it’s raw materials—images, sounds, memories, conversations, events,
etc.,—are internally reconfigured, contingent and not responsive to the
conventions of waking thought, except in unintentional, often hilarious, or
disturbingly uncanny, ways.
The oddly structured anti-narratives that often result are a
rich source of ideas for artists and writers. The extent to which such raw
materials are modified so as to fit the dictates of a particular narrative
framework or genre is mostly a reflection of cultural assumptions about form
rather than a transparent act of creation ex-nihlo. The distinction is
important here, since I am arguing, counter-intuitively perhaps, that it is the
latter that best reflects the unmediated processes by which the mind creates
stories. Moreover, such ‘stories’ cannot be excluded from consideration, as a
form of literature, simply because they are assembled differently than those
that retain fidelity to the official normative codes that characterize popular
genre writing.
The crux of my argument here regarding narrative is that
storytelling is a function of a consciousness freed from the contingent
boundaries and hierarchies of consensus reality, which bears a close
resemblance to the aforementioned process of dreaming—an art form that we
indulge during sleep. The laws of physics and the dictates of western
reason—Cartesian or Aristotelian—need not apply here, as the terrain is that of
imagination rather than the pre-mapped ground of the known and often mundane
world. This is the same metaphorical environment which has always nurtured the
fantastic nature of mythic and poetic narratives. In fact, it is one of the
wellsprings from which the oral traditions of many cultures and literary styles
initially took shape.
Such confabulatory innovations, however, can often evolve,
over time, into the simplified dualisms characteristic of certain quasi-historical
romance dramas and action fantasies. This is not because such forms are
inherently mediocre as narrative styles; rather, it is because their intrinsic
portability has been conducive to their recent metamorphosis into transistorized
e-commodities (although they have always been commercially exploitable forms of
story-telling), which exist in a high-pressure market-driven environment. It is important to point out here as well—despite
my substantial personal and philosophical discomfort at the idea of materially
reductive, computerized, plastic tablets and view screens as devices for the dissemination
of literature—that the electronic revolution they emblematize might be the most revolutionary innovation
since the Guttenberg printing press, or at least the paperback texts, in terms
of making literature accessible to millions whose prior choices were limited by
the material scarcity of expensive paper products. Once one possesses one of
these devices, it is easy to accumulate and read more and more texts, as they,
presumably become more widely available in electronic form. In itself, this is
a positive development, but the history of technological innovation never
occurs in a pristine vacuum; it is frequently buttressed, jostled and squeezed
by the effects of capitalism and corporate investment. Literature that does not
command a large audience, or which is not eminently easy to digest—literature
which, in other words, demands an investment of time and energy from the reader
without the guaranteed sugar-rush of a hook or a payoff—is not going to attract
the sort of market share necessary to keep it on accessible reading lists for
long, although if someone makes the effort to reproduce it, it will surely show
up in libraries, or their futuristic equivalent.
Of course, in theory, it is already cheaper and simpler to
download almost any text; but, as with innovative domestic and foreign
films—which, despite the appearance of hundreds of newly accessible cable TV
stations, have now become more difficult, rather than easier, to access than one
would imagine (although, in rural America, they are comparatively more
available than they were, say, twenty years ago, a fact that is unlikely to be
of help in locating Alexander Jodorowski’s El
Topo, however, if you happen to live in, say, western Kansas)—the reality
still bears out the market-driven truth of that
1970’s axiom, that “unless everybody wants it, nobody gets it.” This
also seems to apply to the disparate, but predictably, commerce driven, subscription
radio stations which claim to play every imaginable variety of music, as long
as one understands that the term ‘variety,’ in this case, refers to that which
can be categorized in accordance with modern notions of demographics, which are
still too streamlined and reductive to be anywhere close to all-inclusive.
I do not mention this to be superfluous, but to point out
that popular forms are commodities shaped by the pressurized dictates of the
marketplace. Whether one defines the final product as a diamond, or an inert
lump of carbon is less important than that it meet the initial entrance
requirements for pre-production. Self-publishing has created an interesting
exception to this, but only to a small extent, as it is becoming very apparent
that individual sensibilities are still primarily shaped by the ideology and tastes
of the marketplace; perhaps far more than the reverse dictum, which holds that
the marketplace is a mere reflection of innate demand—a self-serving shibboleth
of capitalism famously contested by TW Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and others,
over 50-years ago, and then apparently forgotten. After all, who still reads books
by Frankfort School philosophers these days—intellectuals? And, more
importantly, who will read them on a plastic alloy tablet? Similarly, the
long-standing trend of serializing story-telling into pre-chewed and digestible
chunks, has been transformed—through the alchemy of contemporary marketing
techniques—into pre-branded sound-bites and clichés that often replace nuance
with the stuff of made-for-TV movies, or video-game style action-pix. That so
much of this material can comfortably coexist with high-tech cities of disneyfied
marketing slogans and aphorisms has only facilitated the further compartmentalization
of such practices into empirically indexed categories.
Similarly, the conventionalization of writing into codified
genres, techniques, argots and glossaries, creates the false impression of an
artistic process transformed into a series of recipes, whose preparation is, at
best, guided, determined and judged by so-called ‘experts’, and at worst
reduced to mere catechism, or a mundane enumeration of by-laws and rules. Some
of this is attributable to the exigencies and demands of the marketplace, but just
as often it is fobbed off as a standardized set of literary codes that cannot
be transgressed.
I am not trying to imply here, that human beings exist
inside of an ontological or existential vacuum. We all swim in the complex
currents of a shared language, although the act of writing, like its corollary
in thought itself, is a solitary practice. This does not mean that it must be
solipsistic, but its range of available expression does often extend to the
rugged unmapped territories of the extremely personal and quirky. It is this
broadened spectrum of possible literary expression that must be taken into
account when analyzing or perusing narratives that refuse to conform to the
stylistic adaptations demanded by genre writing, and its attendant gatekeepers.
In order to transcend the mind-set that often locks
individual writers into a geosynchronous orbit around the unchanging moon-face
of conventionalized literary formats, one must first attain an adequate escape
velocity. In this particular context, this idiom refers to the necessity of
re-conceptualizing one’s ideas about what constitutes literature—specifically,
the boundaries that define its limits. This reconsideration of paradigmatic
assumptions, often leads writers to examine their most basic assumptions about
the functions of individual words as carriers of discrete meanings previously
thought to be irreducible entities. These entities often reveal levels of
ambiguity that are problematized by the way in which socially transmitted
ideologies encode words with layers of residual meanings that alter the
function of larger narratives. This may inspire writers to experiment with the
very ways in which they present stories, as a method of trying to free the
narrative of vestigial residues that falsify and distort storytelling by
polluting it with ancillary meanings imposed on it from its appropriation as a
vehicle to canonize cultural ideology.
Even narratives that are opaque can provide a visceral set
of associations that are not always apparent from a cursory reading. For example,
the texture of language as a spatial-auditory design element, introduces new
possibilities even when a text resists casual interpretation. The
incomprehensible nature of such texts, often acts as a catalyst for discovering
new modes of conceptualization. This includes, words as texture, composition
and sound; narrative as the intuitive investigation of molecular idioms metamorphosing
into supra mnemonic disseminators of entropic processes. In other words,
meaning can often translate into the language of the visual or tactile. I am of
course, speaking metaphorically here, reducing words to actual concrete
entities in order to make a point regarding the tendency of all metaphors to
collapse into a kind of tone poetry. In doing so, the word is transformed into
an object of almost physical contemplation, replacing metaphor, temporarily,
with a dynamic form of invocation which sculpts the language into something
resembling a poetics of pure sound and feeling..
Even if the text is confined to the realm of a visual
surface that vouchsafes no glimpse of its interior meanings, one can still read
it as if it were the outer skin layer of an exotic tropical aquatic animal. In
this scenario, the reader, beholder, translator—even the author—can act as a marine
dermatologist, of sorts, scanning the epidermis for signs of parasite bites,
barnacles and lesions from shark attacks; examining the way that it covers and
connects the rest of the textual body, while extrapolating the shape of a
barely visible musculature and skeletal structure residing beneath the unitard
of flesh. Such practices must allow for the variations that render all morphological
truths—and that includes analogies as well, even mine—porous and insufficient,
since the structural characteristics of cephalopod bodies are distinct from
those of most chordates, which, in turn, are dissimilar to nematodes, gastropods
and jellyfish. Of course, the more one is willing to generalize, the more
likely that an accurate heuristic, or rule-of-thumb, can be established; but
such generalizations should never be literally confused with the reality that
they refer back to.
One must also keep in mind that even the most well respected
hypothesis can collapse in the face of a new configuration, simply because of a
shift in criterion. This has often been seen periodically in the realm of the
sciences, and is doubly true in the more evaluative and aesthetic province of
the arts, where the sliding geological plates of value and import are
constantly being reassessed in light of new perspectives often arising from
transgressions that are later codified as elements of a new canon. These canons
can quickly harden into the eternal verities of convention if their foundations
are not continually irrigated with a healthy flow of debate and doubt. Thomas
Jefferson once proclaimed that every twenty years or so, “the tree of liberty
must be watered by the blood of patriots,” by which he meant that revolutions
must be periodically infused with new vitality, lest they fossilize and become
rigid and unresponsive to the body politic. Such metamorphic shifts also need
to occur in the contingent realm of the arts, where regimes of taste and style
can quickly become as oppressive as they develop into the orthodoxies of
ideology, and just as incommensurable with the experiences of artists and
writers.
The problem is that all revolutions—whether springing from a
Great Leap Forward, the Storming of a Bastille or new manifestos establishing,
once-and-for-all, the tone of the latest
wrinkle in identity politics— invariably transform the open
possibilities of change into the regurgitated dogmas of the new and improved,
but just as ossified, paradigms that they engender. Literature has never
thrived under the rigid conditions imposed by reformers, any more than it has
blossomed when treated as a modular, segmented thing. It cannot be thrust into
the role of some expository equivalent to an actuary table, or the humanist’s
precision watch mechanism; it cannot be asked to function predictably, as it
does not obey the same laws that apply to machines or objects of empirical
measurement. A good story is too organic, mutable and unexpected—too fragmented
and uncanny—to remain vital under the watchful regimes imposed by the various
gatekeepers of proper form. Rather than express itself through the rigid dress
codes enforced upon it by the arbitrary dictums of paramaterization, it must
perpetrate subterfuge, bribery, even a daring moonlit escape, in order to
preserve its verity.
Of course, the real trick here is to get past the idea that
literature must be cast in stone as a standardized schematic of rhetorical
calligraphy, and infuse it instead with all of the things that make it a human
artifact. By this I do not mean that storytelling must aspire to the conventions
of last years’ fantasy sagas, or those parables constructed to fit the
dimensions of a flat-screen television monitor; rather, it must retain the integrity of its creative
origins. This means that, regardless of its resemblance to those forms put
forth as natural models, it need not flatter any conception of truth but its
own. In other words, the honesty of the work is inherent in the extent to which
it cleaves to the intentions of its creator, not the extent to which it blends
with some previous vision, even if that vision was invoked the day before, by a
respected fellow writer utilizing a similar set of ingredients. Every story
must speak by itself, for itself, and not for any larger symbolic association.
Existence must precede essence, to quote a familiar existential axiom; to do
otherwise, is to turn literature into flat, serialized anecdote; to defang it,
like a drugged South American viper in a glass enclosure; or to suit it up in
identical tweeds, next to others of its ilk, like the mop-tops gracing an early
Herman’s Hermits album cover photo; or, perhaps even to reimagine it as a
carved effigy, stiff and wooden, an object to channel the humor of
ventriloquists, and to edify small children performing in grammar school talent
shows.
My point is not to attack individual examples of a genre; or
even to make some blanket statement that such writing lacks literary merit. In
fact, much of it is quite good. My argument is with the imposition of criterion
and categories that are invariably placed before the very characteristics that
often indicate a story of interest. When applied in a one-size-fits-all
fashion, such criterion becomes burdensome, precisely because it is imposed arbitrarily,
in reference to an index of prerequisites. This type of approach conceals the
reader’s view of the story in question, by framing it against a background of
prior works, which often appear authoritative and canonical as a result of
having defined a new standard for a given type of literature at some point in
the past.
The paradox this suggests is twofold; firstly, all genres
are essentially historically contingent forms, meaning that they evolved from
transgressions against previously existing paradigms, into the conventionalized
styles that reflect the ideal framework of their current state. Secondly,
genres exist in relation to an odd sort of creative tension, or dialectic; this
dialectic, reflects the fact that genres are expected to remain consistent—in
other words, they are defined by certain recognizable characteristics—but at
the same time must be somewhat dynamic in order to continuously develop
narratives of interest. In other words, they must periodically redefine old
mantras, while remaining marketable to a fan base that tends to favor the
familiar reaffirmations of existing themes. Moreover, it is often a truism that
the most inventive examples of these forms are by their very nature too
innovative to remain part of their parent genre; and for this, they are often
symbolically ostracized or punished.
The problem here, however, is that well-nourished art is not
qualitatively synonymous with, say, a well-nourished rhinoceros; the latter is
expected to grow over time into a fatter version of itself, whereas the former
can be expected, inevitably, to transgress the rigid ontological structure that
has been imposed upon it, presumably by canons originating from an entirely
different order of experience. This is because the categories that are applied
to aesthetics—and most other forms of conscious human activity—are incommensurable
with the more static categories that are employed to define the speciation and physical
growth of everything from biological organisms to the behavior of subatomic
particles, planets and entire galaxies. Since literature is a creation of human
consciousness, there are very few laws that can be applied to its overall
character that are not also generalizations. And, since acts of individual
creation are subject to the very quirks and eccentricities intrinsic to all
forms of aesthetic cultural production—say, as opposed to the quantifiable art
of the actuary table or the proper recipe for an influenza vaccination—they
rarely exist comfortably within the fixed boundaries that evolve over time to
shape and contain them.
In ascribing what
are, essentially, categories of being, to the products of the imagination, we
are all indulging a well-documented human proclivity to impose patterns and
meaning over the arbitrary nature of existence. This is not something confined
to literature, as any casual observation of the larger culture reveals; western
civilization has distinguished itself by an aggressive proclivity for
encapsulating almost every identifiable manifestation of everything it touches
within the rubric of some form of taxonomy. These taxa comprise the molecular
constituents for even larger groupings, which are themselves aggregated by the
currents of modern thought into meta-systems. It all presents an extremely
sanitized and ultimately ordered vision of a hyper-Cartesianized universe, one
which transforms the chaos of nature into deceptively predictable probability
boxes that are themselves wedged within larger ontologies. The entirety of this
structure makes the world easier to comprehend, but it is an artifact of
Western epistemology. Moreover, in terms of confronting the daily existential
reality of one’s life, it is a bold-faced lie, and the only language that can
counter its empirical reductionism is that of art.
Yet, all of the arts, including literature, are subsumed
beneath the rising tidal surges of a market driven rush to coopt the world and
partition it into easily identifiable sections. If literature is to thrive as a
way of speaking a kind of truth to the experiences of its creators and
audience, it must periodically break through the barricades of typology and
free itself from tyrannies of style. By transcending the ‘natural order’ of hierarchies
in this way, it can re-establish itself as an expression of verity, as
experienced by the mediating voice of an author rather than the drone of the
commercial ink-press.
Now, if you’ve read this far, and you think that you are
confronting a polemic against science fiction, or fantasy literature, or any of
the other myriad categories that have evolved into their own gated communities,
you might want to use a sharper scythe to more easily make your way through the
tangle of qualifying foliage that I have strategically placed in your path. What
I am discussing here is not confined to a particular category, but is more
properly seen as a sort of manifesto for those who know that the seeds of dogma
reside in all manifestos. More accurately, I am articulating the problem with
reducing things to mere nomenclature, as such titles are always endowed after
the fact; and, paradoxically, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat, always remain
long after everything else has been erased, suppressed or forgotten.
Thus, the balkanization of literary form promises a kind of
immortality; but, it is, ultimately, the immortality of the trademark, the
price code and the corporate patent. Like the uncountable plastic pellets
churning towards oblivion within the waters of the Southern Pacific Gyre, the
numerous offspring of genre branding will continue to exist long past the point
at which their collective readership has disappeared, or perhaps evolved into
something else. While their existence for a long time to come seems assured,
they will always remain granulated nodules, occasionally mistaken for fish food
or bird seed, but rarely considered otherwise. This will constitute a tragedy
of misrepresentation, rather than of outright censorship, for lurking within
the husks of a generic packaging will be the makings of many great works of
literature that have been living under false identities and suppressing the
very qualities that ought to make them exceptional examples of the art.
JZRothstein (completed and edited draft) 6/10/2015