a completely insane experience reading this!!!! bewes basically dispenses of all the methods literary critics usually use to go about understanding or analysing a text and rebuilds his own critical mechanism from fragments of lukács, deleuze and rancière. moreso, he demonstrates how the underpinning logics of the novel form — the instantiation relation [exemplarity, referentiality] namely — are in some way broken in contemporary literature (somewhere between 20-50 years).
obviously there is great challenge in reading texts through the lens of postfiction — at times bewes points at certain configurations of language and narration as evidence but does little to bridge the analytical gap in the way of close reading — or, at least, whatever exists of close reading after this book. it is a strange and abstract thing to write about! i had a hard time even knowing where to start when i wrote an essay heavily informed by this text.
also really interested in the implications for theory after this book. obviously, this monograph is hypothetical and presents a provisional schema for understanding the trajectory of the novel. i think bewes’s most convincing account of this trend in theory is his commentary on cora diamond’s concept of the “difficulty of reality,” where, instead of speaking in the first person about the experience of said difficulty (as bewes insists would be easy, logical and expected to do) she instead narrativises how she wants to go about presenting her arguments (“i am concerned with…” “what interests me…” “i say that…”). [i often try to avoid first person in my essays for this reason but that’s besides the point.] what is up with the tentative/provisional/tender mode of narration in theory? what does that reflect? is it singular to/only explicable through the ‘postfictional age’?
who knows! but super super interesting stuff and i can’t wait to write more on it next semester. tim bewes has both permanently ruined my english degree and also made it a thousand times better