Thank you for re-sharing this piece! A LITTLE LIFE is probably my least favorite novel also. When I've tried to explain why, I've sometimes said that as I was reading, I could see and feel the author moving her pieces around a chessboard of trauma. Your essay has helped me understand why I felt that way. In a no choice plot, I can see the puppet strings the author is using to manipulate her characters through the story rather than feeling invested in the characters' choices and motivations.
Ahh I love the chessboard/puppet strings metaphors here, because it gets at the connection of all of this to the fourth-wall invasion of authorial ego into a text. This is the real problem with moralistic fiction! It cannot help but over-latch onto reality in ways that disrupt the work's self-contained aesthetic completeness.
The moralism and determinism of the no-choice plot goes directly back to the Calvinist ethos, in my opinion--one cannot escape their eventual fate because predestination has locked one into the inexorable pathway that leads to either salvation or destruction.
The timing of your essay is interesting, because I've just finished reading Louis Bromfield's POSSESSION. There are a lot of similarities between POSSESSION and Willa Cather's FLIGHT OF THE LARK, in that they both involve female musicians who turn down the traditional female role of their era (late 19th/early 20th century) to follow the dream of their talent. But Ellen Tolliver is one of the strongest female characters of her era, in that she follows her dream even to the point of rejecting the man of her dreams when their marriage turns out bad, and quite firmly telling him that their child is hers, and that she will not turn him over to his father's family at all.
Note: for anyone picking up Bromfield, be aware that there's quite a bit of casual anti-Semiticism in the use of stereotypical descriptions, along with other ethnicities and a subplot involving a negatively portrayed and veiled gay crush. It's jarring, and unfortunate given that otherwise Bromfield is quite progressive in writing his powerful, rich women. They have children out of wedlock or after separating from their husband, but that doesn't destroy their lives.
Thank you! Totally agree re: the Calvinist ethos, and would argue the “craft” aspect of literary moralism is deeply connected to the protestant work ethic.
Thanks for pointing me here. I agree the choice plot has to be superior, because it’s a higher fidelity engagement with humanity. I guess my question was more about the moral purposes of a text. Surely a no-choice scenario can still fundamentally orient itself towards beauty and truth, though it would have to be explored through structure/style/setting than by the choices of the characters. I think that might be what Epics are.
This is super informative and super relative to my current work. Thrilled that Rob shared it today. Gonna give it a close read when I get time. Thank you!
A nice little synchronicity: Early drafts of the first 3 sections of a story about messy rich people are on my Substack.
I don't want to give too much away, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote something close to "Rich people are just poor people with money" in Bluebeard.
Love this. Have thought about this before, particularly with regard to powerful protagonists on prestige programs--Tony Soprano, Don Draper, Logan Roy. These people are just inherently more interesting than a nobody working in a retail store. For the reasons you mentioned (they can do more things, and more interesting things) and also just human nature: we like people who are like us or ... who are like who we wish we could be. We all wish to be powerful.
I think this basically serves my point: it’s not about rich/poor—no-choice plots suck. Wealth is not hardwired into the distinction but merely correlative.
Thank you for re-sharing this piece! A LITTLE LIFE is probably my least favorite novel also. When I've tried to explain why, I've sometimes said that as I was reading, I could see and feel the author moving her pieces around a chessboard of trauma. Your essay has helped me understand why I felt that way. In a no choice plot, I can see the puppet strings the author is using to manipulate her characters through the story rather than feeling invested in the characters' choices and motivations.
Ahh I love the chessboard/puppet strings metaphors here, because it gets at the connection of all of this to the fourth-wall invasion of authorial ego into a text. This is the real problem with moralistic fiction! It cannot help but over-latch onto reality in ways that disrupt the work's self-contained aesthetic completeness.
Excellent piece!
The moralism and determinism of the no-choice plot goes directly back to the Calvinist ethos, in my opinion--one cannot escape their eventual fate because predestination has locked one into the inexorable pathway that leads to either salvation or destruction.
The timing of your essay is interesting, because I've just finished reading Louis Bromfield's POSSESSION. There are a lot of similarities between POSSESSION and Willa Cather's FLIGHT OF THE LARK, in that they both involve female musicians who turn down the traditional female role of their era (late 19th/early 20th century) to follow the dream of their talent. But Ellen Tolliver is one of the strongest female characters of her era, in that she follows her dream even to the point of rejecting the man of her dreams when their marriage turns out bad, and quite firmly telling him that their child is hers, and that she will not turn him over to his father's family at all.
Note: for anyone picking up Bromfield, be aware that there's quite a bit of casual anti-Semiticism in the use of stereotypical descriptions, along with other ethnicities and a subplot involving a negatively portrayed and veiled gay crush. It's jarring, and unfortunate given that otherwise Bromfield is quite progressive in writing his powerful, rich women. They have children out of wedlock or after separating from their husband, but that doesn't destroy their lives.
Thank you! Totally agree re: the Calvinist ethos, and would argue the “craft” aspect of literary moralism is deeply connected to the protestant work ethic.
Thanks for pointing me here. I agree the choice plot has to be superior, because it’s a higher fidelity engagement with humanity. I guess my question was more about the moral purposes of a text. Surely a no-choice scenario can still fundamentally orient itself towards beauty and truth, though it would have to be explored through structure/style/setting than by the choices of the characters. I think that might be what Epics are.
Anyways, good essay!
Yeah I mean it’s a general heuristic not an ironclad rule (“skews” verbiage broadly applicable)
This is super informative and super relative to my current work. Thrilled that Rob shared it today. Gonna give it a close read when I get time. Thank you!
A nice little synchronicity: Early drafts of the first 3 sections of a story about messy rich people are on my Substack.
I don't want to give too much away, but Kurt Vonnegut wrote something close to "Rich people are just poor people with money" in Bluebeard.
Always appreciate a close read—thanks! & it sounds like you might also be interested in the unplanned part 2: https://joukovsky.substack.com/p/high-low
Love this. Have thought about this before, particularly with regard to powerful protagonists on prestige programs--Tony Soprano, Don Draper, Logan Roy. These people are just inherently more interesting than a nobody working in a retail store. For the reasons you mentioned (they can do more things, and more interesting things) and also just human nature: we like people who are like us or ... who are like who we wish we could be. We all wish to be powerful.
...and see the mighty fall.
Ah yes.
Love how you singled out A Little Life to pick apart, lol
Who am I to argue with Parul Sehgal
Belonging to the side of haters of "messy, rich people" plot, I also don't want Ted Lasso because I also dislike "rabidly optimistic hero" plots.
I think this basically serves my point: it’s not about rich/poor—no-choice plots suck. Wealth is not hardwired into the distinction but merely correlative.