What does /lit/ think about the Nouveau Roman? Was it simply a failed 20th century literary experiment that should be forgotten, or did authors like Robbe-Grillet, Butor and Simon manage to innovate the novel form beyond the stagnating conventions of plot and character?
>>25586071I think the only nouveau roman author I've read is Robbe-Grillet, having enjoyed both the Voyeur and the Labyrinth. Certainly both succeeded because they were more than about plot and character. I also read the Bettle Leg and Lime Twig by John Hawkes recently, that left me feeling similarly (though I don't know what the line is from the nouveau roman crowd to post-modernism).Got any novels you'd recommend? or essays?
>>25586389The Lime Twig is great>though I don't know what the line is from the nouveau roman crowd to post-modernismThere is no hard and fast line between them, though my impression of the former is that the writers were essentially trying to reinvent the wheel with every book, I’d say postmodernism is arguably more consistent. Would highly recommend the book in the OP, it’s essentially a cut-up collage novel about his travels in America. La Modification is worth a read too (painstakingly composed entirely in the 2nd person).Would also recommend Plats by John Trefry, it’s too contemporary to be considered part of the movement but it’s certainly inspired by the kind of architectural, object-focused or descriptive prose you’d find from Robbe-Grillet or Butor.
>>25586071They had little effect on the novel as a whole unless you are the sort who tries to cram Beckett in with them. Their way of just removing stuff from the novel without replacing it with something else can be interesting but offers little, far too restrictive. Oulipo and the post modernists in general did what they attempted with much more success as far as innovating the novel beyond plot, character and narrator goes. I suspect Nouveau Roman had more influence in film and theater than literature. >>25586389They are generally considered a part of post modern literature and pretty much fit in there, they were just a bit more targeted in their goal.
>>25586474>though my impression of the former is that the writers were essentially trying to reinvent the wheel with every book,I don't think that is accurate, having to reinvent the wheel was just a side effect of the way they went about their goal. Their techniques just are not broadly useful for the novel, once it has been done you can't use the same trick again, it would result in much the same novel as the first time and all that would change is everything they were trying to write around, Oulipo had much the same issue but that was part of it for them, they imposed constraints specifically to push them away from the traditional tools but did not give up on the traditional tools.
>>25586495>having to reinvent the wheel was just a side effect of the way they went about their goalWorth reading Robbe-Grillet’s Towards a new novel to understand what I’m getting at. Every novel should strive towards its own self-sufficiency as a work of art. I mentioned Butor specifically because of just how different and estranged his novels are from one another, both in terms of form, technique and content.
>>25586525I have read it and I don't think Robbe-Grillet meant it as you are using it. He was saying you should not rely on convention and if you want to use plot you should establish what a plot is instead of just going "here is a plot" and relying on the reader's understanding of what a plot is. It has been years since I read this stuff, could be misremembering but I remember this aspect fairly well because my reaction to it was how much they relied on the negative space of the traditional novel and the negative space is just a tacit convention.
bump
I've read a bit of Robbe-Grillet and Sarraute and enjoyed them a lot. Maybe the nouveau roman authors didn't achieve a total revolution of literary form, sure, but just taken as a unique movement, they contributed more to the novel than many others in the 20th century. I prefer them by a lot to Oulipo authors like Perec who just seem like a lame dead-end joke to me (Queneau is very good though). T
imagine someone today having an opinion on some new way to write a novel like no one would give a shit
>>25586542>how much they relied on the negative space of the traditional novelCould you elaborate on this? I’m not entirely sure what you mean.>>25589195I think it was a lot more influential than most people realise, especially given that many of these books are out of print and hard to find. Hard disagree on Perec, I loved Life: A User’s Manual personally.>>25589203Anyone still interested in innovating the novel form today is basically just scrabbling around in the dilapidated ruins of modernism for an audience of maybe 3 people. That’s not to say there isn’t interesting art to be found though, I recently read a pretty good article on what the author terms “Necromodernism”:https://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/necromodernist-architectures-in-contemporary-writing/
>>25589195The bulk of Queneau's writing is not Oulipo, he move on fairly quickly.>>25589685>Could you elaborate on this? I’m not entirely sure what you mean.They write around the traditional narrative methods and often imply them, essentially writing what happened off the page and was implied in the traditional novel. >I think it was a lot more influential than most people realiseWhat would you say that influence was? I don't see any development of their techniques and ideas, lots of writers were definitely influenced by them but they don't seem to use that influence directly, it is just some literature they liked. Other than getting the occasional novel that is blatant about its nouveau roman influence and is essentially nouveau roman, I just don't see much influence. The primary influence I see is that to write a piece from the perspective of an inanimate object has become a staple in creative writing classes.
