What counts as an interesting novel now?
Big Kiss, Bye-Bye is well observed, sensitively and carefully written, and it feels fully contemporary -- so why, when I finished it, did I feel it has nothing in common with what I think of as interesting current fiction? How can it be that the category of the novel is such a poor descriptor that it includes both this book and ones I read and write? It's as if I want to buy a TV, and I go into the electronics section of Walmart or Target and find flowers and cookware on the shelves along with televisions. I wonder if any other medium or genre has such an unhelpfully broad range of reference.
Skill and writing in Big Kiss, Bye-Bye
A useful way into this question is to ask what counts, for the implied author and ideal reader of Big Kiss, Bye-Bye, as a successful description, passage, or chapter. What is on the implied author's mind when it comes to writing a publishable novel? What do the book's ideal or implied readers feel are its criteria of success?
As I see it, what counts is the depiction of inner life, both the narrator's and her intermittent partner Xavier's. It's delightful when the narrator gets annoyed, and then fixated, on Xavier's extravagant weekly gift of a bouquet of flowers. She doesn't like his choices, and we get to hear about her least favorite flowers and her sense of taste, and then, when she cleverly arranges things so she can choose the flowers herself, she is tormented by the florist, who expects her to spend 50 Euro each week. Her irritations are on full self-conscious display: we know that she knows she's over the top about it. It's delightful, too, when her perplexities over Xavier's lack of self-awareness keep bubbling to the surface, sometimes as irritations at herself, other times as sudden negative judgments about things in the world or as transient flushes of indecision. Bennett's prose is a continuous see-sawing from guarded and qualified positives to their complementary negatives and back again, and it can be beautifully balanced, as here:
I certainly did realize how hard Xavier tried--I realized it and it moved me, again and again. That's probably why I kept the dozen red roses. They weren't an original choice, not at all, but that's precisely what made them so touching. I took off all the heads when they went over, and when the petals were completely dried up I put them in a crystal bowl, and so for years there was this crystal bowl full of dried roese heads on my drinks tray. And then I was sorting throgh everything--towels, bedding, cables, everything--and still I hadn't heard from Xavier, not since that last dinner when he'd invited me to kisshim and I hadn't wanted to and he'd said, "Do I seem old to you?" and I'd said, "Yes," so I picked up the crystal bowl and shook all the rose headsout into a black sack, out they tumbled, already downcast, I'm not taking you with me, I'm not taking you with me, and some petals came loose and fell to the floor, and later, when I swept them up, I felt bad, I felt a pang, but there was still so much to do that I didn't dwell on it for very long. [p. 65]
This is well managed, phrase by phrase, and the writing dependably provides inventive variations on this kind of pleasure. It paints a vivid portrait of a woman who is self-aware, self-doubting, insecure but sharp, unhelpfully overly thoughtful, intermittently hapless, combattive but dependent, a kind of cross between Simone de Beauvoir and Bridget Jones. At the same time, because this is the era of autofiction, the implied author hovers coyly over the whole, since her narrator is roughly Bennett's age, and Xavier is significantly older (75 years old at one point in the narrative).
All this is fun, and for me, it has nothing to do with what makes novels interesting or worth spending time on. It would have been helpful, for me, if the novel had acknowledged some of the writers that formed it, or against which it was writtrn. There are some passages that echo Beckett and Joyce, but that similarity is not acknowledged:
How could we have possibly known then what people were like? At that time. At that time. When what? When we are at our most alert and sensitive and independent. Never mind. Never mind. [p. 178]
The history of novels that are similarly interested in women's voices, or writers interested in women'sinner monologues, from Woolf to Ellmann and Tillman, are entirely absent from the book. By this I don't mean that Big Kiss, Bye-Bye lacks references to Beckett and others, although it could easily have accommodated them since it includes names of actual writers; I mean passages like the one I quoted are not in dialogue with Beckett and others: there's no sign the writing is responding to anything other than the narrator's mood.
What does Bennett, the implied author, think a novel is? Something like a vehicle, of optimal flexibility and eloquence, for describing new forms of subjectivity, specifically the narrator's in her relation with Xavier. For me, that's not what novels since modernism primarily are.
Some potentially useful terms
The art historian Terry Smith is one of several who make a distinction between contemporary and contemporaneous. An artwork is contemporary if it was done this year or this decade. It's contemporaneous if it participates in current conversations about its genre, medium, style, or content: that is, if it reflects and reflects on ideas and strategies of artmaking that are under discussion at the moment. In visual art, an example of a contemporaneous work might be a piece by Kara Walker or Julie Mehretu, since they engage -- in quite different ways -- with ideas current in the culture. A contemporary work might be a traditional landscape or still life painting that is but in dialogue with techniques and conventions that have not been current for some time. In literature, many best sellers, detective fiction, and romances are contemporary in this sense.
The situation is more complicated in literature, because of two terms, literary and experimental.
Literary fiction has a shallow history. As Dan Sinykin suggested in The Nation, the expression first appeared in the 1980s, long after the high modernist classics that are now identified as literary fiction, and most of a generation after the postmodern novels by Pynchon and others that are still contrasted against popular fiction ("What Was Literary Fiction?," Oct. 10, 2023). From his point of view, literary fiction is part of the capitalist enterprise, the "conglomerate superorganism," comprised of editors, publishers, publicists, and others, who conspire -- often with the best intentions -- to produce, for a public, a packaged product that can be consumed as the sole product of an indvidual writer engaged with the practice of their craft. In Sinykin's view, literary fiction emerged as a market category in response to the rise of mass-market genre publishing, including mystery, SF, and romance, because it became necessary to label whatever fiction didn't fit those categories.
That way of thinking about literary fiction helps explain why it is so hopeless as definition of any particular of fiction: it's whatever can be marketed as "character-driven and realistic, whereas genre fiction generally describes work that’s plot-driven" ("Literary Fiction vs. Genre Fiction" on writers.com), or whatever ticks the boxes on the Wilipedia page for "Fiction": it "does not fit neatly into an established genre... is character-driven rather than plot-driven, examines the human condition, uses language in an experimental or poetic fashion" or "is considered serious as a work of art."
Experimental fiction had a bad name as early as 1978. In an interview Georges Perec says he doesn't want to be associated with the "experimental" work of Alain Robbe-Grillet and Tel quel. The journal was openly experimental, and so was the group Oulipo, which Perec joined just seven years after it was founded. (The expression, in French, goes back to Emile Zola’s Le Roman expérimental, 1891, which had an entirely different meaning.)
Experimental fiction's current bad name comes from its assocation with extensions of Oulipo such as conceptual poetry, where the author risks getting lost in theories, philosophies of fiction, and self-imposed schemata or constraints. At the same time experimentalfiction is associated with the adoption of unusual page formats: multiple columns, concrete poetry, photographs, footnotes, and so on. Those conventions are then associated with two more traits that could in theory be quite different: a skepticism about the conventions of realist fiction, especially in regard to recognizable or conventional storylines; and a lack of interest in plot (which is one of the principal qualities assigned to literary fiction). At the same time, experimental fiction is also associated with two more possibilities: skepticism about the narration of subjectivity, and an explicit, thematized fascination with the traditions and nature of the novel itself. That's four markers, in the enumeration I'm adopting here: theory and constraints, formatting, unconventional narratives, and lack of plot.
Some writers associate experimental fiction with just one or two of these. In "Experimental Fiction, Or What Is a Novel and How Do I Know?" (2018) Ralph Barry describes experimental fictions as "attempts to determine what a novel is, rather than as formal innovations or challenges to realist conventions." He praises some novels written between 2000 and 20o4, such Carole Maso’s AVA (2002), Steve Tomasula’s VAS (2004), and David Markson’s Vanishing Point (2004), because there "the predicament in the novel is also the predicament of the novel." But for my purposes, any combination of those is enough to label a novel "experimental."
Triangulating different senses of the novel
These elements can help articulate the distance I feel between "a good novel" as it is proposed by Big Kiss, Bye-Bye and "a good novel" in the senses that interest me. Bennett's book can be placed in the 21st century by the texture of the narrator's second thoughts and judgments, but it is not contemporaneous in its underlying project of exploring subjectivity, which has been part of fiction from James, Proust, and Woolf onward. Big Kiss, Bye-Bye is literary fiction in that it's "character-driven" and the plot and action are minimal. It's not experimental fiction because it's uninterested in being skeptical about conventional storylines, it is utterly uncritical about the project of narrating subjectivity, and it is free of any markers of awareness of the traditions of the novel itself.
For me, a contemporaneous novel has to show some skepticism about received forms of narrative (why not? It's been over a hundred years since the 19th century naturalistic novel was critiqued by modernism), some wariness of the project of describing inner states and subjectivity (that's been on writers' agendas since Stein, Camus, and Beckett), and some awareness of its place in the history of novels since modernism and postmodernism (that's been part of modernism since Joyce, Pound, and Eliot). Otherwise--what else is there to say?--the novel is entertainment or nostalgia.