Interesting article here-
Personally, I don’t agree with anything she says. She seems to take insult at experimental writers (something I see a lot of in genre fiction readers as well) as if the writer- by handing her the freedom of personal interpretation, and giving her equal ground in the writer/reader relationship, has somehow slighted her or insulted her. It’s as if experimental fiction is attacking her personally…and I find that odd.
The fact that she calls herself a realist makes her no different than the genre folks who feel the same way about experimental fiction. This refusal to open a mind, to accept the freedom and responsibility for creation of your own symbols within a text, seems to be a common fate to a culture spoon fed their thoughts and imaginations via a drip feed of hollywood block busters and television shows that dictate visual signals that override the richness that textual symbolism has to offer.
In other words?
Just because she has “tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt towards an English degree” doesn’t mean she knows everything and anything about literature itself. Experimental fiction is as old as fiction itself. Unlike art, which went through phases of experiments making things more and more abstract, fiction has had works like Tristam Shandy from the get-go. The fact that she calls Joyce and Stein experimental (with disdain) shows how broadly she lumps everything together.
Personally, I like what Murakami said in an interview somewhere, when asked about his fabulist/magical realist elements in his narrative- that he considered himself a realist writer. Even in those sections, he considered himself a realist writer.
I loved that. It rings true, and challenges the notion of how textual symbolism can be real or not.