Same. All this talk of literary movements and whatever strikes me as artificial. It's a category of the mind. I guarantee that when I write my stories I don't even think of what movement am I a part of.
I actually do often think of what I write along with many schools or movements within the history of literature. Can't really help it because I know things. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that all categorizations in literary studies are merely artificial either. You may still have a point though. "All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green."
More than anything I think categorization is just a fun thing to do. To an extent it’s like scene drama - doesn’t really do a whole lot substantively other than drive interest in the literary space, which is still a useful end.
Lovely read and I will have to include some thoughts in my draft response to Cairo!
Regarding "is the problem with modern literary fiction not “wokeness qua wokeness,” but the mere crudity of its delivery?" my initial thought is not that it's an inherent flaw in their ideology that's the problem.
The problem is they're not our tribe/religion: we are unable to experience verisimilitude from their claimed cause and effect chains they present. Even if done perfectly it is not "for us" and is experienced as a foreign cultural artifact.
My beef with "New Wave" is more just the genericism. Is our "newness" that defines us? Every wave since the dawn of time has been new. I think more honestly we are all some flavor of post-liberal (an unsexy name, so I may cook up some alternate suggestions in my next piece)
All good and valid points. This idea of “world-models” being determined by your moral epistemology (i.e. “cause-and-effect chains”) resonates strongly. And I agree that the genericness argument holds weight. Time will tell if this idea has legs or not!
As I read this, I am sitting at my desk on a Saturday, with a novel about 55% written, and I know how hard it will be to finish it, and all I can think about is getting the work done. How anyone characterizes it after it is done, or whether the book belongs to any group or scene, are all remote concerns. Getting the work done is the hard part.
In many ways, I think trying to not be "homogenous" is the very identity shredder you seek to avoid in your other work. For example, you already exclude very controlling and didactic leftist art which already defines your movement by exclusion. To be truly non-homogenous, you would have to accept them as well as every idea and be the "well really who cares movement."
Which I don't think is very viable.
Every movement has had an identity, and I think it's unavoidable. So the New Wave will be defined by certain aspects whether conscious or unconscious and I think people already see that kind of nucleus forming. So I think lots of groups with very defined identities is how it's going to play out and you pick whatever you fall in. New Wave is one, and I'm sure there are many more to follow.
And now to further twist the bolts and contradict myself, I don't know if didactic art is as homogenous as you claim in the first place.
For example there's Asian American artist Negative XP who made the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Ruined a Whole Generation of Women. 9M views on youtube. Should he have not made allusions to communist art hoe BPD girls or Hollywood because that idk decreases the excellence of his art? Because I think the opposite. I think his very didactism catapulted his song into stardom. Is his work too homogenized in a right wing scene? I don't think so either.
So the way I see it, I'm just making right wing trash to counter left wing trash and add more variety to the overall entertainment sphere for true artistic diversity. I hope you guys in the New Wave make excellent art as well with the amount of politics you're comfortable with. Whatever works.
I think that’s a strong argument. If I understand it right, you’re saying that the absence of a clear set of inclusionary & exclusionary criteria makes a literary movement too formless and the category meaningless - that some kind of coherence will organically emerge if the category holds up or not over time. Broadly agree and it’s interesting food for thought. If I’d say anything, I think it comes to freedom to contradict yourself along political, ideological, aesthetic lines. Syncreticism of some kind as the essential nucleus of the New Wave.
What an interesting exchange! As an aside, claiming Shakespeare's moral certainty strikes me as odd. Turning to "New Wave," I like the intention very much. As branding, I'm a little less convinced, only because I can't keep all the "New ____s" and even "New Waves" straight. But I really think you are right about the need not to let one's politics swallow one's art. Relatedly, at least in the confusion of the moment, I recently asked a bunch of writers, including you, and some in this comment section, what they thought of Ted Gioia's pessimism about the novel. Responses have been really interesting, and I'd still like to hear yours. I will probably turn this into a kind of colloquium, somewhat like what you've done here. Maybe I can get Ted to give the last word. Anyway, it's here if anyone wants to check it out or comment. For my part, I'm quite happy to see this exchange, and the energy the "New Wave" and other writers on Substack are putting into their work. Kudos and onward!
Fascinating. That is there is discussion of a group or movement forming in response to both woke, and anti-woke ideological framings is hugely encouraging. It leaves me excited for the first time in a while.
Some folk's politics become their morals, and other folk's morals determine their politics. There is a spectrum. Iron clad orthodoxy on one side, and moral relativism on the other, and of course, everything in between. Remember 'we must agree to disagree?' Seems like that's getting harder and harder to do for all the obvious reasons. Interesting post.
I saw this ridiculous video by some annoying shitlib https://m.youtube.com/shorts/dLorsi0xAiA conservatives and fascists are on creative really really let's check history some of the greatest artists were conservatives Tolstoy asking Tolkien CS Lewis the author of Huckleberry Finn or the author of The magic mountain or poets like Ezra pound or TS Eliot conservatives can make good art the problem is we just don't like modern because it is s*** putting a banana on a wall is not art it's just lazy crap but it's funny the woman tries to defend it but here's the funny thing they're actually were a few good modern art movements futurism or the art movie by Wyndham Lewis the problem is after the war they got discredited as fascist that was legitimately good art but modern art today is crap it's not that conservative aren't creative we are just look at our meetings they're far better than the art we have now it's that shitload progressives are lazy and most modernized just a money laundering scheme
I was thinking of jumping in the discussion, but maybe it will be better to let my novel do the talk
Same. All this talk of literary movements and whatever strikes me as artificial. It's a category of the mind. I guarantee that when I write my stories I don't even think of what movement am I a part of.
I actually do often think of what I write along with many schools or movements within the history of literature. Can't really help it because I know things. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that all categorizations in literary studies are merely artificial either. You may still have a point though. "All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green."
More than anything I think categorization is just a fun thing to do. To an extent it’s like scene drama - doesn’t really do a whole lot substantively other than drive interest in the literary space, which is still a useful end.
that's how I feel too.
Lovely read and I will have to include some thoughts in my draft response to Cairo!
Regarding "is the problem with modern literary fiction not “wokeness qua wokeness,” but the mere crudity of its delivery?" my initial thought is not that it's an inherent flaw in their ideology that's the problem.
The problem is they're not our tribe/religion: we are unable to experience verisimilitude from their claimed cause and effect chains they present. Even if done perfectly it is not "for us" and is experienced as a foreign cultural artifact.
My beef with "New Wave" is more just the genericism. Is our "newness" that defines us? Every wave since the dawn of time has been new. I think more honestly we are all some flavor of post-liberal (an unsexy name, so I may cook up some alternate suggestions in my next piece)
All good and valid points. This idea of “world-models” being determined by your moral epistemology (i.e. “cause-and-effect chains”) resonates strongly. And I agree that the genericness argument holds weight. Time will tell if this idea has legs or not!
Just recorded an interview with David Herod of Tooky's a few hours ago where we talked about this for a while. Should come out in two weeks or so.
Looking forward to it!
As I read this, I am sitting at my desk on a Saturday, with a novel about 55% written, and I know how hard it will be to finish it, and all I can think about is getting the work done. How anyone characterizes it after it is done, or whether the book belongs to any group or scene, are all remote concerns. Getting the work done is the hard part.
Hey man, interesting article.
In many ways, I think trying to not be "homogenous" is the very identity shredder you seek to avoid in your other work. For example, you already exclude very controlling and didactic leftist art which already defines your movement by exclusion. To be truly non-homogenous, you would have to accept them as well as every idea and be the "well really who cares movement."
Which I don't think is very viable.
Every movement has had an identity, and I think it's unavoidable. So the New Wave will be defined by certain aspects whether conscious or unconscious and I think people already see that kind of nucleus forming. So I think lots of groups with very defined identities is how it's going to play out and you pick whatever you fall in. New Wave is one, and I'm sure there are many more to follow.
And now to further twist the bolts and contradict myself, I don't know if didactic art is as homogenous as you claim in the first place.
For example there's Asian American artist Negative XP who made the Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Ruined a Whole Generation of Women. 9M views on youtube. Should he have not made allusions to communist art hoe BPD girls or Hollywood because that idk decreases the excellence of his art? Because I think the opposite. I think his very didactism catapulted his song into stardom. Is his work too homogenized in a right wing scene? I don't think so either.
So the way I see it, I'm just making right wing trash to counter left wing trash and add more variety to the overall entertainment sphere for true artistic diversity. I hope you guys in the New Wave make excellent art as well with the amount of politics you're comfortable with. Whatever works.
Keep up the articles ARX-Han!
I think that’s a strong argument. If I understand it right, you’re saying that the absence of a clear set of inclusionary & exclusionary criteria makes a literary movement too formless and the category meaningless - that some kind of coherence will organically emerge if the category holds up or not over time. Broadly agree and it’s interesting food for thought. If I’d say anything, I think it comes to freedom to contradict yourself along political, ideological, aesthetic lines. Syncreticism of some kind as the essential nucleus of the New Wave.
What an interesting exchange! As an aside, claiming Shakespeare's moral certainty strikes me as odd. Turning to "New Wave," I like the intention very much. As branding, I'm a little less convinced, only because I can't keep all the "New ____s" and even "New Waves" straight. But I really think you are right about the need not to let one's politics swallow one's art. Relatedly, at least in the confusion of the moment, I recently asked a bunch of writers, including you, and some in this comment section, what they thought of Ted Gioia's pessimism about the novel. Responses have been really interesting, and I'd still like to hear yours. I will probably turn this into a kind of colloquium, somewhat like what you've done here. Maybe I can get Ted to give the last word. Anyway, it's here if anyone wants to check it out or comment. For my part, I'm quite happy to see this exchange, and the energy the "New Wave" and other writers on Substack are putting into their work. Kudos and onward!
https://substack.com/@davidawestbrook/note/c-71442826?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=13evep
As Tony Tulathimutte has said, the literary novel is now a conservatory form, and that’s okay.
Fascinating. That is there is discussion of a group or movement forming in response to both woke, and anti-woke ideological framings is hugely encouraging. It leaves me excited for the first time in a while.
Glad you liked it!
Some folk's politics become their morals, and other folk's morals determine their politics. There is a spectrum. Iron clad orthodoxy on one side, and moral relativism on the other, and of course, everything in between. Remember 'we must agree to disagree?' Seems like that's getting harder and harder to do for all the obvious reasons. Interesting post.
I saw this ridiculous video by some annoying shitlib https://m.youtube.com/shorts/dLorsi0xAiA conservatives and fascists are on creative really really let's check history some of the greatest artists were conservatives Tolstoy asking Tolkien CS Lewis the author of Huckleberry Finn or the author of The magic mountain or poets like Ezra pound or TS Eliot conservatives can make good art the problem is we just don't like modern because it is s*** putting a banana on a wall is not art it's just lazy crap but it's funny the woman tries to defend it but here's the funny thing they're actually were a few good modern art movements futurism or the art movie by Wyndham Lewis the problem is after the war they got discredited as fascist that was legitimately good art but modern art today is crap it's not that conservative aren't creative we are just look at our meetings they're far better than the art we have now it's that shitload progressives are lazy and most modernized just a money laundering scheme
You actually wrote a book though that does what you think books should do! Have these other guys?
They’re both good writers and both have published along the lines of their own philosophies, yes.