The Aldridge framework is the strongest thing here — the distinction between describing and vivisecting is real and it explains why so many novels that feel urgent on publication feel dated five years later. But I think the essay slightly misapplies it. Moshfegh and Lin don't escape the trap so much as aestheticise it differently — nausea is still description, just pointed inward instead of outward. The trash-can soul is a diagnosis, not a transformation. What would actual vivisection look like? Probably formal rather than thematic — a novel where the structure itself enacts what the millennial subject has become, rather than a narrator telling you about it. That's closer to what Cusk does in the Outline trilogy, which isn't generational fiction at all but captures the evacuated self more precisely than any of these candidates. This is a great piece and made me think a lot, thanks for that.
I think it all has a lot to do with being cut off at the embryonic stage, in the literary sense. At least when it comes to traditional publishing. Surely there are novels that 'vivisect' millennial culture...but they're probably not getting through the agent Slush Piles because they aren't the narratives Big Publishing is looking for.
And what they're looking for is not indicative of our generation as a whole because woke identity politics, progressive values, and insular narratives about rich people regardless of race are de jour. We get cut off at the knees, in other words. Our stories don't have a chance.
But also it's sort of a fine line, I think, between accurately unpacking the broad ethos of a generation versus kowtowing to the most overt trends of the day for said era, whatever they may be. It quickly starts to devolve into a trendy self-masterbation exercise, navel-gazing and too fixated on certain language, devices, feelings, events.
Perhaps millennials are The End of History in a figurative manner and we simply need to let go of trying to 'nail' a generational vibe and simply write our authentic stories. Reach back towards universality, Then again: I don't think agents will want most of these stories. But that's where Substack comes in.
An ambitious and thought-provoking essay. I’d add that part of the reason people read classics must be because they’ve encountered powerful commendations of them all their lives. It’s about long-term exposure and perceived self-improvement. You could go round and round about the collapse of economic incentives and the influence of editors and critics in the decline of the market for literary fiction (whatever that is) but I think it’s a mistake to underplay the fundamental role of technology. The question: how can challenging novels make their place in a media world dominated by visual storytelling?
the problem is the money is better at wasting writers’ time than encouraging them to make art. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is the case example: Fleabag, I think, had more cultural impact than any piece mentioned here (besides maybe Normal People, which had a big TV adaptation). And Waller-Bridge is getting paid $20m a year by Amazon to like, develop a Tomb Raider show. grim!
Fully agree that “My Year of Rest and Relaxation” is probably the greatest millennial novel thus far. And that Lerner destroyed an otherwise fine book with his tedious moralizing epilogue (though, I think importantly, he’s not actually a millennial — much more heir to Gen X political moralizing, more Greenwell and Eggers than anything else). I did think Gasda’s novel came close conceptually to capturing millennial anxieties.
The reason is because the cultural elites were not interested in finding the best of the millennial generation. The elite boomers were more interested in demoralizing the young population to keep them from growing. The result is the millennials became the biggest forgotten generation. We may never get to know the millennial Hemingway this side of the veil but I believe they do exist.
The Great Gatsby was not a “generational novel" of the 1920s. Or if it was, arguably so. However, several novels certainly were "generational novels" that decade - subsequently buried by the Cold War Red Scare McCarthy Era establishment liberal-conservative propaganda and backlash: Home to Harlem and Jews Without Money were. And Daughter of Earth should have been. And these latter three novels did "capture what it was like to live in the 1920s for many different sorts of people." And their "genius" did seem "to peel back everything incidental and disposable and properly judge the entire age." https://fictiongutted.substack.com/p/the-great-american-whitewash-take
I agree that "My Year of Rest and Relaxation" is probably not great, but it's certainly good, and it made me happy to see so many people reading an American novel that's actually good.
I don't think the book is really about "the intrusion of History." I don't think Moshfegh cares at all about history, which is one reason she's refreshing to read.
I wonder even if there can be such a thing as a generational novel or if it would be more accurate to talk about capturing a time of life (like a person’s 20’s or 50’s) like what the Rabbit tetralogy does.
I must defend Private Citizen, for in the smallness of it's temporal time and place it's the only novel to acknowledge the essential change wrought by the internet; which is that it's no longer possible for a small number of elite institutions and platforms staffed by people coming from the same sort of places to hold cultural hegemony. The internet has let everyone cocoon themselves into smaller and smaller niches; and the whole enterprise of the generation novel seems absurd from the outset. The lived experiences of so many millions cannot be contained without a singular work.
Tulathimutte's great success in private citizen is acknowling this impossibility and zeroing in on the much smaller niche which he is able to capture warts and all, without becoming a self-hating pessimist of his own small world.
It’s “Dungeon Crawler Carl” by Matt Dinneman. Literary Critics just havent realized it yet because it is too lowbrow, so they haven’t been able to realize in aggregate what a great social commentary or how well crafted it is, and they probably won’t be able to ever teach it in high school.
I’m giving you ten minutes to correct ‘shoe-in’ to ‘shoo-in’.
Done. Thank you, sir
Great piece!
The Aldridge framework is the strongest thing here — the distinction between describing and vivisecting is real and it explains why so many novels that feel urgent on publication feel dated five years later. But I think the essay slightly misapplies it. Moshfegh and Lin don't escape the trap so much as aestheticise it differently — nausea is still description, just pointed inward instead of outward. The trash-can soul is a diagnosis, not a transformation. What would actual vivisection look like? Probably formal rather than thematic — a novel where the structure itself enacts what the millennial subject has become, rather than a narrator telling you about it. That's closer to what Cusk does in the Outline trilogy, which isn't generational fiction at all but captures the evacuated self more precisely than any of these candidates. This is a great piece and made me think a lot, thanks for that.
I think it all has a lot to do with being cut off at the embryonic stage, in the literary sense. At least when it comes to traditional publishing. Surely there are novels that 'vivisect' millennial culture...but they're probably not getting through the agent Slush Piles because they aren't the narratives Big Publishing is looking for.
And what they're looking for is not indicative of our generation as a whole because woke identity politics, progressive values, and insular narratives about rich people regardless of race are de jour. We get cut off at the knees, in other words. Our stories don't have a chance.
But also it's sort of a fine line, I think, between accurately unpacking the broad ethos of a generation versus kowtowing to the most overt trends of the day for said era, whatever they may be. It quickly starts to devolve into a trendy self-masterbation exercise, navel-gazing and too fixated on certain language, devices, feelings, events.
Perhaps millennials are The End of History in a figurative manner and we simply need to let go of trying to 'nail' a generational vibe and simply write our authentic stories. Reach back towards universality, Then again: I don't think agents will want most of these stories. But that's where Substack comes in.
An ambitious and thought-provoking essay. I’d add that part of the reason people read classics must be because they’ve encountered powerful commendations of them all their lives. It’s about long-term exposure and perceived self-improvement. You could go round and round about the collapse of economic incentives and the influence of editors and critics in the decline of the market for literary fiction (whatever that is) but I think it’s a mistake to underplay the fundamental role of technology. The question: how can challenging novels make their place in a media world dominated by visual storytelling?
part of this is the preeminence of TV in this era — as Owen noted here (https://oyyy.substack.com/p/the-cultural-decline-of-literary), that’s where the money has been, especially 2010-2022ish.
the problem is the money is better at wasting writers’ time than encouraging them to make art. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is the case example: Fleabag, I think, had more cultural impact than any piece mentioned here (besides maybe Normal People, which had a big TV adaptation). And Waller-Bridge is getting paid $20m a year by Amazon to like, develop a Tomb Raider show. grim!
Agree, and would suggest Michaela Coel is equally well-positioned.
Fully agree that “My Year of Rest and Relaxation” is probably the greatest millennial novel thus far. And that Lerner destroyed an otherwise fine book with his tedious moralizing epilogue (though, I think importantly, he’s not actually a millennial — much more heir to Gen X political moralizing, more Greenwell and Eggers than anything else). I did think Gasda’s novel came close conceptually to capturing millennial anxieties.
The reason is because the cultural elites were not interested in finding the best of the millennial generation. The elite boomers were more interested in demoralizing the young population to keep them from growing. The result is the millennials became the biggest forgotten generation. We may never get to know the millennial Hemingway this side of the veil but I believe they do exist.
My vote is for No One is Talking About This. Lockwood was born in '82.
The Great Gatsby was not a “generational novel" of the 1920s. Or if it was, arguably so. However, several novels certainly were "generational novels" that decade - subsequently buried by the Cold War Red Scare McCarthy Era establishment liberal-conservative propaganda and backlash: Home to Harlem and Jews Without Money were. And Daughter of Earth should have been. And these latter three novels did "capture what it was like to live in the 1920s for many different sorts of people." And their "genius" did seem "to peel back everything incidental and disposable and properly judge the entire age." https://fictiongutted.substack.com/p/the-great-american-whitewash-take
I agree that "My Year of Rest and Relaxation" is probably not great, but it's certainly good, and it made me happy to see so many people reading an American novel that's actually good.
I don't think the book is really about "the intrusion of History." I don't think Moshfegh cares at all about history, which is one reason she's refreshing to read.
I wonder even if there can be such a thing as a generational novel or if it would be more accurate to talk about capturing a time of life (like a person’s 20’s or 50’s) like what the Rabbit tetralogy does.
I must defend Private Citizen, for in the smallness of it's temporal time and place it's the only novel to acknowledge the essential change wrought by the internet; which is that it's no longer possible for a small number of elite institutions and platforms staffed by people coming from the same sort of places to hold cultural hegemony. The internet has let everyone cocoon themselves into smaller and smaller niches; and the whole enterprise of the generation novel seems absurd from the outset. The lived experiences of so many millions cannot be contained without a singular work.
Tulathimutte's great success in private citizen is acknowling this impossibility and zeroing in on the much smaller niche which he is able to capture warts and all, without becoming a self-hating pessimist of his own small world.
Still puzzled by Rooney’s stature.
It’s “Dungeon Crawler Carl” by Matt Dinneman. Literary Critics just havent realized it yet because it is too lowbrow, so they haven’t been able to realize in aggregate what a great social commentary or how well crafted it is, and they probably won’t be able to ever teach it in high school.
Matt Dinniman and Brandon Sanderson. Gosh what a generation we have. I wish we also had our own true comparable versions to Tolkien and Beagle.
Excellent criticism. Don’t forget the “lost generation” discourse, which is relevant enough.