Episodic vs. Narrative

[Brent Robison]

I found this article in the Wall Street Journal illuminating: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574308530848...

But it seems to be pointing the same direction as so much publishing news these days: alas, I'm out of step! I am definitely in the Episodic camp... just feels more like truth to me.

Where do y'all fall?

[Brent Robison]

Tim, I've been thinking about your question and coming up blank. Partly because I've never been able to keep up with "recent books," but especially because I've been all wrapped up in my own book for many months now. And actually, it comes closest to being a combination of single- and multiple-character narrative as anything I can think of. A reader review on Amazon compared it to the movies Magnolia (which I liked) and Crash (which I didn't) -- somewhat appropriate comparisons, except that the book has no overall narrative arc. Its stories, while freestanding, are linked in a variety of subtle ways and the cumulative effect (I hope) is one of weblike interconnectedness. And there are stories that contain sub-stories, linked by invisible circumstance. So it is both "spectator" and "character identification" fiction but of a different variety. Hmm. it seems that film and tv may be more suited to spectator fiction... I'm giving some more thought to why. More later....

[Tim Moore]

I loved reading about this fork in the philosophic stream, Brent. Thanks. You could also say there is a fork between the "character identification narrative," where readers identify with one character and a singular fate dominates, and "spectator fiction" where many characters weave a composite that is at once narrative and episodic, and readers don't identify with any particular one. We seem to love clean dualities like the model in this article, but episodic TV of the HBO series variety, ER, etc, mix ensembles of characters that blur the line between narrative and episode. Which recent books strike you as both?

[Randy Burgess]

And I should add that "Dubliners" is a themed collection - but again I don't ever read it that way.

[Randy Burgess]

We haven't fully unpacked yet, and your book is somewhere in the, uh, web of cartons - so I will have to write here from memory. To be serious rather than flip, for me it reads like a collection of short stories, and not a larger narrative of any sort - so Siegel's episodic vs. narrative distinction doesn't apply for me - it only makes sense in the context he was using it, that is, in regard to novels.

It's true that your stories share not only common characters but some common themes - e.g., one theme seems to be that acceptance of mystery & pain & love brings grace, denial of these things brings only suffering. But every short story author has pet themes & a few different pet styles - for example my faves Frank O'Connor and Isaac Bashevis Singer certainly do.

But I persist in seeing each story as a story & more or less disregarding any attempt to knit them together - e.g. "Signs" is still my favorite and I see that story as distinct. This is also my instinctive response to other short story collections in which some of the characters appear in several of the stories - e.g. Elizabeth Tallent's story "Favor" is one of several in a particular collection of hers (which again is packed away, so I can't look for the collection's title) featuring a young married couple, Jenny and Sam - but I don't care about the other stories featuring them, only "Favor," which I first read on its own (probably in The New Yorker) and which I think is best enjoyed that way - on its own.

[Brent Robison]

Aha, you're seeing through me...;-) I assume you're talking about my book, and do hope you'll say more.

I posted this in hopes of eliciting discussion. I feel drawn toward an Episodic outlook, but know I don't stick to that. Truth is, I don't like such simplistic dualities as Episodic vs. Narrative, and would like to walk a middle way... perhaps there are little Narratives that nestle amongst the Episodes... or perhaps reality is just perception anyway: however I'm seeing it from moment to moment, that's what it is, sometimes Episodic, sometimes Narrative. I say, for art's sake, why not play with both of 'em?

[Randy Burgess]

Also, you're Episodic, Brent . . . but you too are trying to point to a Big Fated Meaning for all of us. Naughty, naughty, says Mr. Siegel!

[Randy Burgess]

At a glance the article seemed puerile to me. Mr. Siegel seems to wish to draw a Big Fated Meaning for literature, but his readings of "Invisible Man" and "Catcher" seem more like misreadings. Yes, I'm cranky today.