Happy post-Valentine’s/galentine’s/palentine’s day!! I don’t know about you, but I am happy to move on from this neocapitalistic scheme of a holiday - so let’s talk about my first love: books!
There’s A Plot for Everyone to Hate On
Recently, plots have found their necks on the guillotine. I understand it viscerally. Some plots hurt to read. A truly devastating plot can delineate our lives, give them a before and after. They can mess with our telomeres, change us fundamentally. They can make us acutely aware that the human condition is net negative, while we had been living unaware that we were in a zero sum game at all. A clever plot needs to have implications on reality. So what does it mean to cancel whole plots? Can we impose a sense of moral absolutism on an entire plot type? The most convincing argument I have seen is in this article by the iconic Parul Sehgal - in a piece called “The Case Against the Trauma Plot”:
Sehgal raises some critical points, and I found most interesting her discussion on how the trauma plot rests heavily on an excavation of the backstory. In modern trauma plots, the backstory is misused as a stand-in for personality, she says. However, I am more concerned with the question of using backstory as a plot device to exert authority over morality. To play armchair psychologist with literary characters, which may not have real life implications until we are led to believe that every action has a reaction, as if the novel pillages some strange Newtonian law in order to create meaning.
Sehgal argues that the morality of literature is compromised in the trauma plot (I am using moral in the sense that moral work reveals fundamental truths about nature, human or otherwise). In this plotline, the rippling butterfly effect from the fountainhead of backstory trauma directly informs character decisions. And their decisions can be vile sometimes. But can the past justify the grotesque? Even within the confines of logic, I would wish characters have more self-determination than that. Perhaps I am lending these “characters” too much humanity though, pardon me. They are just fictional after all.
So then, what do we do with a book like Hanya’s? One that imposes a sick voyeurism onto the reader, as we watch a man go through the sickest dredges life has to offer? Would we want to come out of the book with newfound fortitude, or at least some explanation of why sweet Jude had to live in hell on Earth? Was there a greater contribution to humanity, was he a martyr, could we learn from his pain? No, no, and no. That’s life, sweetie, says Hanya. I’m not the only one mad about A Little Life - check out this deep dive into the myriad issues with her novel.
And of course, when Brandon writes, he roars. In his own Substack newsletter (Sweater Weather), Brandon responds to Parul Sehgal’s essay in the New Yorker. The discussion he brings does right by her essay, while also saving room for comfortable criticism. I like this part best: “I think that such writing has its place. And, as always, people can do what they want. It’s never because of one book or one writer. You can’t lay these kinds of broad, cultural shifts at the feet of one person or another just because they come to typify (often only in our own heads) certain parts of the contemporary moment we don’t like. And, also, like, sometimes people need to see themselves reflected or represented in the broader cultural conversation before they feel empowered enough to tell their own stories. It seems mean-spirited to try to make fun of that.” (read it below):
Oh and here’s a super interesting one that cropped up: The Arranged Marriage Plot. I didn’t particularly care for this essay tbh, but I was intrigued by the term. We all know the original marriage plot is a bit been there done that. Unless the characters are electric and the writing is off the train tracks, it’s going to be a Disney movie, right? I am unsure how I feel about the arranged marriage plot though, is this a ploy to reach Hollywood diversity quotas in a pseudo way?
I was recently asked by a friend what my book type is, and the first thought I had was character-driven, the plot can go die. However, that’s the just the starting line. The open-ended nature of the question was overwhelming, so I decided to quizzify it, in case it helps you find your “type".” Try answering for yourself and see what you come up with:
Quiz - What’s your (literary) “type”?
Do you prefer character or plot-driven stories?
Do you prefer a more experimental or classic structure?
If your book type was a weather, what would it be?
Do you prefer books that offer escape through atmsophere, or books that are more cerebral?
How do you deal with moral absolutes in a novel?
How do you feel about “unlikeable” characters?
One word to describe the mood of your favorite books?
Does the cover of the book matter to you?
What is your ideal book length?
Here are four books that are my type:
Shop them here: My Year of Rest and Relaxation, On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous, The Atmospherians, and Freshwater
Readings on my mind:
My friend Reggie from @reggiereads is famous! He was interviewed by NPR about what books by black authors should hit the screen next, along with some other big names!
I grew up watching the Suite Life of Zack and Cody, and this Cut profile of Brenda Song was surprisingly wholesome! However, I disagree with her book choice and her completionism. 10/10 would still be her friend.
It’s Black History Month, and this article about the rich history of plant-based eating throughout the African diaspora was informative.
This article was harrowing but also uplifting. My heart thumped harder through these lines: “Then the feelings of guilt began to creep in. Why hadn’t I known that he was an abuser? I had a doctorate in psychology; I knew how sexual predators operated, how they manipulated children and gained their trust, as Nassar had done with me. I quickly spiraled, questioning whether I should be in the field of psychology at all. Of course, I was just a child when Nassar targeted me; I didn’t have a doctorate back then. But still, it was hard to see it that way. I couldn’t shake the feelings of guilt.”
The Atlantic dives into the moralization of hobbies, and I feel personally attacked. Also, I realized I tend to engage mainly in “serious leisure” as opposed to other tiers. In fact, writing this newsletter as we speak in in my leisure time!
Oh dang, just realized I am more vulnerable to social media AI than with my IRL relationships sometimes. Does it feel safe to feel so seen by social media, or is it brain-numbing tedium?
Can someone please send me a PDF of this article? I am stuck behind the paywall and want to read it so badly lol.
Loved this take. I've always thought about the trauma plot and how it's utilized. I think when people say ‘its just a book’ or ‘its just a character’ dehumanized something that's supposed to emulate or at best take reference from real life. Even if trauma does shape decisions it should never shape the story I believe.