Reply to comment

In Professor Dalke's discussion section of EvoLit, we also discussed the implication of such a seemingly postmodern novel like Generosity in the context of, as you nicely call it, "our beloved novel"; instead of focusing on attention span, however, we talked about the idea of writing a novel that no longer has a simple plot arc with characters that we are invested in (à la Jane Austen), but that remains constantly self-analyzing and seemingly distant from its characters.

As someone who likes writing about writing and reading about writing, Powers's novel opens up exciting new ways of talking about these things as a class; however, it has become clear to me that many people are either bored by, disenchanted with, or skeptical of Powers's writing style, preferring the "beloved novel" that they could pick up and lose themselves in. While I can definitely appreciate this sentiment, I also wonder if as a class we occasionally become like Stone, remaining rooted in a somewhat traditional idea of what writing is or should be while all the while resisting new forms and mediums. I think this is normal, and that at every point in history people are worried about what will come next, and whether that will bring with it new depth or whether it will just founder into superficial entertainment.

In the digital age, this question is becoming more and more pressing. It seems that people know what they lose in reading Generosity - identifying with the characters, losing ourselves in the plot - but what do we gain? Does Powers's novel give us something that others haven't yet?