As much as I love Modernism I must admit it has its share of radical supporters whose ideas don't always make a lot of sense (I'm looking at you, Robbe-Grillet). The goals of Modern literature, simplistically speaking, were to completely disregard the previous literary traditions and begin everything anew. The old modes of writing were considered insufficient in their ability to describe the new, highly fractured world view that came into prominence following World War I.
One major proponent of Modernist ideologies was author and critic (although he denounced the title) Alain Robbe-Grillet who, in 1963, published a compilation of essays about fiction writing titled, For A New Novel. In it Robbe-Grillet compares the literary traditions of yore to tree branches and that, "...the branch in question is actually dead of natural causes, by the simple action of time...and if all those who cling to it so desperately would glance up just once toward the top of the tree, they would discover that new, green, vigorous, hearty branches have grown out long since" ( p. 26).
He goes on later in the book to say that he is not proposing Modernism as the new, permanent style. It too will pass and something will take its place. Literature should always be alive and vital and change along with the needs of the writer. In Robbe-Grillet's mind, the writers of the period no longer needed many of the literary conventions such as linear narratives, omniscient narrators, and metaphor. And this is where I feel Robbe-Grillet went a little too far with his proposal. He confused popularity of convention with usefulness. Just because a mode of writing has fallen out of fashion it doesn't mean it's not useful.
Every writing technique is there to serve a purpose. Metaphor, for example, compares two objects in order to cast one of those objects in a new light. In Dave Eggers' short story, "On Wanting to Have Three Walls Up Before She Gets Home" he says, "...the air is gray and dense and the snow falls like ash." Eggers' description of snow forces the reader to question their preconceived notions about each object and how, according to his suggestion, they might actually be more similar than originally thought. Robbe-Grillet, on the other hand, wants to get rid of metaphor completely, arguing that its use devalues the intent of the initial word. In the case of Eggers' story, he is not allowing snow to be described as it is, but instead, relies on another image (ash) to get his point across. As I stated earlier, in creating a metaphor, the author forces the reader to reassess their notions of both objects and come to a conclusion about them. If anything, the comparison invites further thought on the meaning of each word and doesn't devalue them at all.
Along with metaphor, story structure, or at least linear story structure, was also brought into question during the reign of Modernsim. Linear story structure plots a straight line from one point in time to another. A story takes place at noon and ends at five in the afternoon. Non-linear storylines jump around in time and lack structure. The plot meanders wherever it may and lacks cohesion; the events of the story may seem unrelated and arbitrary. The point of this technique is to reflect the often random nature of life and the banality of human existence. While I don't have a problem with this form of writing, I think it's unwise to completely dismiss traditional story structure as archaic. Many of the best works of literature are well-plotted and completely dependant upon that plot to work.
Playwright, Theresa Rebeck, knows all to well how much structure has fallen out of favor with the literary community. In an L.A. Times interview she says,
Last year I attended a cocktail party for a theater that was doing one of my plays. The artistic director was making a little presentation, introducing me to his staff and his board, and he said -- in front of everybody -- "Theresa's plays are always really well-structured, but don't hold that against her."
The next day I wrote him an e-mail. "Hey, is it somehow considered uncool to structure a play these days?" I asked.
"Actually," he wrote back, "my literary department kind of does think that."
She defends the rotten branches of literature
Robbe-
Grillet was so eager to trim by saying, "Structure is not our enemy, it is the form that makes content possible; it is the meaning that holds the image and imbues it with specificity; specificity is not our enemy; intellect without heart is not more, it is less and in the theater sometimes less is just less. Contemporary playwrights don't need to toss away all that has come before us, nor could we if we even tried."
The last line of her quote echoes an oft-repeated line in Paul Thomas Anderson's movie
Magnolia which says, "We may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us." Literature is not written in a vacuum. It is a product of a person's imagination, a person who, whether they like it or not, is influenced by the world around them. The changes Modernists so desperately wanted to make were in response to what had come before; the Victorian and Romantic Periods. In order for new branches to grow, there have to be roots somewhere. Nothing is created out of thin air. Structure, like metaphor, and omniscient narrators, may be part of an older tradition, but they are no less important than the new, Modernist tradition, incidentally, is pushing 100 years old. Looks like some one's outlived their usefulness ( I'm looking at you, Modernism).
