Narrating the Mesh: Form and Story in the Anthropocene

Narrating the Mesh

Under the Sign of Nature: Explorations in Ecocriticism

Serenella Iovino, Anthony Lioi, and Kate Rigby, Editors

Michael P. Branch, SueEllen Campbell, and John Tallmadge, Senior Advisory Editors

Narrating the Mesh

Form and Story in the Anthropocene

Marco Caracciolo

University of Virginia Press

Charlottesville and London

University of Virginia Press

© 2021 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia

All rights reserved

First published 2021

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Caracciolo, Marco, author.

Title: Narrating the mesh : form and story in the anthropocene / Marco Caracciolo.

Description: Charlottesville : University of Virginia Press, 2021. | Series: Under the sign of nature: explorations in ecocriticism | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2020038854 (print) | LCCN 2020038855 (ebook) | ISBN 9780813945828 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780813945835 (paperback) | ISBN 9780813945842 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Ecocriticism. | Narration (Rhetoric) | Fiction—History and criticism. | Climatic changes in literature. | Human ecology.

Classification: LCC PN98.E36 C37 2021 (print) | LCC PN98.E36 (ebook) | DDC 808.3/923—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020038854

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020038855

Cover art: Alcuin/iStock

Contents

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Narrative and Interlocking Forms

1. Complex Narrative in the Anthropocene

Part I. Nonlinearity

2. The Form of the Butterfly

3. Negative Strategies and Nonlinear Temporality in Postapocalyptic Fiction

Part II. Interdependency

4. Five Ways of Looking at Nonhuman Actants

5. Minding the Anthropocene

Part III. Multiscalarity

6. Metaphorical Patterns in Anthropocene Fiction With Andrei Ionescu and Ruben Fransoo

7. Metaphor, Scale, and the Value of Conceptual Trouble

Coda: Thinking beyond Literary Form

Notes

Works Cited

Index

Acknowledgments

If this book exists, it is largely thanks to the European Research Council, which sponsored the NARMESH project under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 714166). Conceived when I was an Italian working at the University of Freiburg in Germany and hosted by Ghent University after I moved to Belgium, NARMESH is very much a product of European integration. As I write these lines in March 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic is shaking that European project at its core—the free circulation of people. Borders are closed, air traffic and train services are almost at a standstill, people across the continent are sheltering in place. While I am confident that Covid-19 is not here to stay, I hope the outbreak will prove once and for all that Europe’s only desirable future involves a strong commitment to a society based on solidarity and resilience in the face of a radically unstable nonhuman world.

Just as the NARMESH project aims to bring into focus narrative’s engagement with the mesh of human communities and nonhuman phenomena (to use Timothy Morton’s terminology), this book benefited enormously from a vast human mesh. My partner, Wibke Schniedermann, made this fabric of connection so much more secure and vibrant. The core members of the NARMESH team, Susannah Crockford, Shannon Lambert, and Gry Ulstein, offered tremendously helpful input throughout the writing process. I feel immensely privileged to have worked day after day for more than three years alongside such inspired, knowledgeable, and fun human beings. I am also indebted to our many international guests and affiliated scholars and students—Santi Luca Famà, Ruben Fransoo, Kaori Inuma, Andrei Ionescu, Kaisa Kortekallio, Delzi Laranjeira, Sue Lovell, Melissa Luypaers, Reuben Martens, David Rodriguez, and Jonas Vanhove—for their rich contributions to the NARMESH project. Several colleagues visited us in Ghent and delivered highly stimulating guest lectures, which have left a deep mark on my ideas as they are articulated in this book; special thanks go to Ridvan Askin, Jon Hegglund, Erin James, Merja Polvinen, and Alexa Weik von Mossner for engaging in an extended conversation with me and my colleagues.

Ghent University offered a fantastic environment to develop my thinking on narrative form and the nonhuman. I discussed this project with Lars Bernaerts, Stef Craps, Mahlu Mertens, and River Ramuglia, all of whom provided thoughtful feedback and inspiration. I would also like to thank Boyd Zenner, my editor at the University of Virginia Press, for her continued support and astute advice. The editors of the Under the Sign of Nature series and three anonymous readers offered insightful commentary on various versions of this book.

Three chapters contain published material: chapter 3 draws on my Negative Strategies and World Disruption in Postapocalyptic Fiction, Style 52, no. 3 (2018): 222–41, used by permission of Penn State University Press; chapter 4 on Notes for an Econarratological Theory of Character, Frontiers of Narrative Studies 4, no. 1 (2018): 172–89, used by permission of Walter de Gruyter; chapter 6 on Metaphorical Patterns in Anthropocene Fiction, coauthored with Andrei Ionescu and Ruben Fransoo, Language and Literature 28, no. 3 (2019): 221–40, used by permission of SAGE Publications, all rights reserved. I am grateful to these journals and my coauthors for granting me permission to reuse and adapt these articles.

The panels from Richard McGuire’s Here in chapter 1 were originally published in Raw 2, no. 1, 1989, copyright © 1989 Richard McGuire, used by permission of the Wylie Agency (UK).

Introduction

Narrative and Interlocking Forms

Already from the title, Lauren Groff’s short story At the Round Earth’s Imagined Corners (2018), in the collection Florida, applies a geometric filter to physical space: paradoxically, the Earth is seen as both a round and an angular shape. This preference for geometric patterns characterizes the imagination of the story’s protagonist, a child named Jude. Born in Florida, at the edge of a swamp that boiled with unnamed species of reptiles (Groff 2018, 15), Jude’s mind is intensely attuned to the patterns of the natural world. When his family moves to a new house on the coast, he discovers a new world, full of dolphins that slid up the coastline in shining arcs. Jude loved the wedges of pelicans ghosting overhead, the mad dig after periwinkles that disappeared deeper into the wet sand (2018, 17). Like motion lines in a comic book, Groff’s metaphors highlight Jude’s ability to perceive the formal choreography of the dolphins’ shining arcs, or of the pelicans’ wedges. These patterns, the protagonist soon learns, are not limited to nonhuman animals—they underlie his subjectivity and the human world surrounding him: He began to sense that the world worked in ways beyond him, that he was only grasping at threads of a greater fabric (2018, 17). Threads of a greater fabric is a metaphorical expression capturing the interconnectedness of things, the way in which, through the mediation of abstract form, human and nonhuman realities converge. Later, Jude is given two books: One was a collection of Frost’s poems. The other was a book of geometry, the world whittled down until it became a series of lines and angles (2018, 24). Thematically as well as stylistically, abstract form and literary language—geometry and Robert Frost’s poetry—are coupled. The value of literature (certainly, literature as Groff practices it) consists in revealing the geometry of human characters’ embedding in a more-than-human world. This embedding, in At the Round Earth’s Imagined Corner and throughout Groff’s oeuvre, is an expression of fragile ecological relations whose instability threatens nonhuman animals as well as the future of our own species.

Groff’s short stories keep returning to a sense of expectant dread, as if danger was always lurking around the corner—from the unique local hazards of Florida’s wilds to the global threat of rising sea levels, which is already reshaping Florida’s coastline. This formal vision, which many of Groff’s characters share, affords a unique perspective on the ecological crisis. Form provides aesthetic distance from humankind’s predicament: through metaphor and imagery, the abstraction of literary form appeases, temporarily, the anxiety of living in times marked by radical, human-induced changes to ecosystems. At the same time, form brings out the vast fabric of interconnection in which both humans and nonhumans are intrinsically caught up. Cultivating the imagination of form puts us in a position to apprehend, like Jude, the complexity of humanity’s implication in systems—of the climate, of the Earth’s oceans and geological history—that culture has taught us to see as external and impervious to human activity.

This vision resonates with ecological philosopher David Abram’s discussion in The Spell of the Sensuous of form and pattern as a privileged focus of our encounters with nature: In contact with the native forms of the earth, one’s senses are slowly energized and awakened, combining and recombining in ever-shifting patterns (1997, 63).¹ Our connection to nature, Abram argues, is nourished by the imagination of repetitive figures (1997, 64)—geometric patterns—that bounce back and forth between human subjectivity and the natural environment. Because of the centrality of vision in human cognition, we tend to think about form in visual terms, as pictorial shape. However, we encounter formal regularities in other sensory modalities as well: sounds have a temporal contour (the undulating rhythm of cicadas singing), touch has texture (from silky to rough), and even taste has a distinctive shape, closely related to our somatic reactions to the taste of food (the sourness of lemon). For Abram, thinking with these various sensory forms is uniquely capable of breaking down the dualistic barriers that divide, in the Western world, human societies from nature. As Abram suggests, form and pattern are an essential step toward overcoming the ideology of frantic exploitation of nature that, in the wake of the industrial revolution, has brought our planet closer and closer to ecological catastrophe. Paying full attention to natural forms reveals human societies’ deep entanglement with them—that we are never external observers of nature, but always part of a pattern that reaches far into our embodied minds and evolutionary history. Developing appreciation for pattern means letting go of human exceptionality and fostering a sense of our vital interdependency with the nonhuman world.

The tension between sensible patterns, the abstract geometry of human-nonhuman relations, and the aesthetic distance provided by literary form is central to Groff’s work, including At the Round Earth’s Imagined Corners. Groff probes this tension through the form of narrative itself, as the short story encapsulates Jude’s evolving understanding of his place in a world that is both strange and marvelous. Narrative captures and stages forms at multiple levels: the geometric imagery evoked by Groff’s language, the stylistic patterning of rhetorical figures, the larger contour of Jude’s life as Groff narrates it. This book argues that, as a flexible macroform, narrative has an important role to play as humanity comes to terms with the devastating impact of large-scale industrialization on the planet. In fiction—and particularly in contemporary fiction that, like Groff’s, engages with the ecological crisis—form and pattern are employed to undermine dualistic thinking and bring the human back into the fold of the nonhuman world. These narratives can probe, through formal means, what Timothy Morton (2010) describes as the enmeshment of humanity in climatological, geological, or biological phenomena that have long been seen as operating independently of human societies and cultures. By examining a set of late twentieth-century and twenty-first-century novels and short stories, the following chapters explore the formal configurations through which the quintessentially human practice of narrative can channel our capture in nonhuman processes. The abstraction of the narrative forms we will examine re-creates, through the mediation of language and concepts, the sensory geometry experienced by Jude, with its potential for bridging the human and the nonhuman worlds.

The task of this introduction is to put the reader in a position to appreciate the value of narrative form vis-à-vis the climate crisis and the Anthropocene—the proposed name for the current geological epoch, which is defined by the dramatic impact of industrial societies and global capitalism on the planet. Developing this argument requires opening a conversation between three different fields of scholarly inquiry, which will be outlined in the following sections: first, current work in narrative theory, particularly (but not exclusively) in an econarratological vein; second, insights into the Anthropocene and the nonhuman within the environmental humanities; and, third, discussions on the significance of form in the scientific and cultural understanding of human-nonhuman relations. By weaving together these discourses, this study seeks to shed light on the power of narrative form to chart the ecological crisis and its ethical and epistemological ramifications.

In Search of Narrative Form

What does it mean to say that narrative has a form? The question is anything but trivial. In sensory experience patterns are palpable and easily recognizable; Abram’s account rests precisely on their phenomenological immediacy. In the more rarefied domain of narrative we may lose track of form completely. An option would be to equate form and the structures that early theorists of narrative have concentrated on in the wake of Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistics and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s anthropology. Writing in the 1960s and building on Vladimir Propp’s formalist study of the folktale (1968), Algirdas Julien Greimas (1966) and Roland Barthes (1975) sought to explain the constraints that act on the potentially infinite variety of narratives. If we took all the stories in the world and boiled them down to their most fundamental constituents, what would we be left with? In a word, we would have revealed their structures. Thus, Greimas looked into the skeletal structure of narrative—the system of semantic oppositions that make story possible. For his part, Barthes explored the sequencing of narrative, the way stories string together actions and events following a distinctive temporal and causal logic. Despite these and many other insights, the structuralist experiment didn’t last long: it came to an abrupt end in the 1970s, splintering into the galaxy of so-called structuralism. Literary studies moved on, and even the field of narrative theory or narratology—which had been inaugurated by structuralism—entered its postclassical phase, with scholars starting to look for inspiration beyond structural linguistics.²

Identifying form with structure doesn’t hold much promise for this book, either. Structures, as structuralist theorists saw them, are too stable and inflexible to be assimilated to the ever-shifting patterns of nature that Abram discusses. To capture narrative’s engagement with these patterns, we need another conception of form—a more dynamic and open-ended one. A philosopher, David Velleman, offers a useful point of departure:

A story . . . enables its audience to assimilate events, not to familiar patterns of how things happen, but rather to familiar patterns of how things feel. These patterns are not themselves stored in discursive form, as scenarios or stories: they are stored rather in experiential, proprioceptive, and kinesthetic memory—as we might say, in the muscle-memory of the heart. Although the audience may have no discursive memory of events such as those of the story, it nevertheless has an experience of déja senti, because its emotional sensibility naturally follows the ups and downs of the story, just as a muscle naturally follows the cycle of tension and release. (2003, 19; italics in the original)

For Velleman, the form of narrative is fundamentally embodied and affective: it consists in variations on a basic somatic pattern of expectation and release. There are various possibilities for conceptualizing this somatic pattern; Ellen Dissanayake (2011) discusses its origin in psychological development, arguing that storytelling has its roots in infants’ interactions with their caregivers, and more specifically in the regularities and surprising variations that underpin games such as peekaboo. In these playful activities, expectations are generated through the repetition of gestural patterns (in peekaboo, hiding one’s face) or vocalizations (in baby talk): emotions arise whenever the caregiver decides to deviate from the expectations created by previous interactions (by delaying the peekaboo moment).³ As infants grow up and acquire linguistic skills, narrative latches onto this emotional structure and displaces it to the level of verbal interactions. Thus, storytelling arouses interest by creating expectations—for instance, about the resolution of a conflict or a character’s response to a situation—and by guiding the audience, typically through a number of complications, to an outcome. The ups and downs of story are therefore a more sophisticated iteration of the affective patterns laid down in development: the emotional rhythm of baby talk is replaced by an equally emotional (but word-involving) progression of characters and situations. Hence the link between narrative form and affect: the form of narrative is the configuration of emotionally charged circumstances created by the telling.

If this sounds too abstract, consider the way in which we categorize narratives on the basis of genre: Patrick Colm Hogan’s affective narratology offers compelling cross-cultural evidence that literary genres, far from being purely arbitrary constructs, reflect prototypes of emotional experience.⁴ For instance, Hogan discusses how the revenge tragedy builds on the patterning of revengeful feelings, with their temporally organized sequence of received hurt and desire for retribution.⁵ In the field of digital humanities, a study by Andrew Reagan, Lewis Mitchell, Dilan Kiley, Christopher Danforth, and Peter Sheridan Dodds (2016) comes to similar conclusions about the correlation of narrative and the patterning of emotional experience. Adopting a big data approach, Reagan and his collaborators fed over 1,700 book-length narratives into a computer algorithm capable of sentiment analysis—that is, of identifying emotional language in the text and distinguishing between positive and negative emotions. The algorithm then tracked the development of affective language in the story: whether positive emotions increase or decrease, and in what sequence. The results highlight that the narratives fall into six basic emotional templates, which correspond to generic prototypes such as tragedy (a constant fall in positive emotions), rags to riches (a constant rise in positive emotions), and four combinations thereof (such as Cinderella-type stories, which cycle between rise, fall, and rise in positive emotions). While there are obvious limitations to Reagan and his team’s statistical approach, their findings—particularly when read alongside Velleman’s and Hogan’s more theoretical and interpretive arguments—are highly suggestive. The form of story is its emotional patterning, which is grounded in psychological development and then performed, linguistically, through the dynamics of characters and situations. A textual strategy is formal when it is able to modulate this patterning.

This use of the concept of form resonates with a broader movement in literary studies known as new formalism (see Levinson 2007). With the end of structuralism and the rise of cultural studies, literary scholars have tended to sideline form in favor of approaches that emphasize the interaction of texts and their historical context. The widespread perception was that a narrow focus on form—taken usually in the sense of style, genre, or narrative levels and strategies—failed to do justice to the ways in which texts mirror and respond to broader sociocultural trends.⁶ The ideological dimension of literature took center stage in literary studies and was analyzed in increasingly sophisticated ways by scholars working in critical theory and poststructuralist philosophy. Over the last two decades, form has been making a comeback, however. To a large extent, this shift is due to an expanded understanding of form that encompasses texts as well as their contexts. An important statement of this position can be found in Caroline Levine’s Forms, where she describes her understanding of form as all shapes and configurations, all ordering principles, all patterns of repetition and difference (2015, 3). For Levine, such patterns exist in texts and in the sociopolitical world—for instance, through the rhythms of organized social life: her core claim is that paying attention to subtle and complex formal patterns allows us to rethink the historical workings of political power and the relations between politics and aesthetics (2015, xiii). Consider Levine’s reading of a poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning on Queen Victoria’s accession to the British throne in 1837 (2015, 74–81): Levine argues that Barrett Browning’s formal choices in terms of meter and prosody evoke, and yet at the same time resist, the official temporality of monarchic power. The forms of poetic time thus position themselves vis-à-vis the institutionalized forms of public life. Nor is Levine’s interest restricted to poetry; on the contrary, she assigns a central role to narrative, which she sees as uniquely able to stage encounters and tensions between linguistic and ideological forms.⁷

The ideas laid out so far extend and deepen Levine’s account of the significance of narrative form. The basic patterning of story is affective, and it is organized around generic expectations that tap into the forms of emotional experience.⁸ This affective structure serves as a magnet, attracting a multitude of other patterns (textual as well as social and ideological) and staging the ways in which they reinforce or undermine one another. Put otherwise, narrative is an extremely capacious and flexible macroform. While new formalist arguments are typically positioned at the intersection of aesthetic and sociopolitical form, this book foregrounds narrative’s engagement with the forms of the natural world—those identified by Abram and revealed by Groff’s short story through the geometric imagination of the protagonist. This does not mean shutting the door on the sociopolitical implications of the narrative figuration of natural patterns. But it does mean placing those implications in a broader context, one that goes beyond a narrowly anthropocentric worldview. That discussion also prompts a reconsideration of words such as nature and natural, with their cultural legacy (in a Western context) of dualistic separation between the human and the nonhuman. Our times make this language highly problematic. But form still holds value, as we’ll see.

Introducing the Human-Nonhuman Mesh

The framework of Abram’s discussion of form in The Spell of the Sensuous is phenomenological: he sees an abstract and objectifying science (1997, 65) as deeply complicit with notions of human mastery over the nonhuman word. Instead, drawing on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy of the body, Abram argues that phenomenological exploration, when directed at the experience of natural forms, can reconcile Western subjects with the nonhuman world from which they have become alienated.⁹ But it is worth keeping in mind that, just as there are limitations and dualistic biases in scientific knowledge, there are important limitations to what we can experience in a sensory way. Abram’s examples of natural forms—the rippling streams, tree bark, and weed clusters that punctuate his discussion—are grounded in personal encounters with human-scale realities. Through that emphasis on the human scale, Abram’s phenomenological method goes hand in hand with the return to the local and . . . celebration of a ‘sense of place’ that have, according to Ursula Heise (2008, 8), defined the environmentalist movement in the United States since the 1960s.

Abram was, after all, writing in the 1990s, when the planetary scale and ramifications of anthropogenic climate change were still on the margins of public debates and eluded even well-informed commentators like Abram. The scientific certainty of climate change, which is by now inescapable, introduces radically new challenges. In philosopher Dale Jamieson’s words, Climate change poses threats that are probabilistic, multiple, indirect, often invisible, and unbounded in space and time. Fully grasping these threats requires scientific understanding and technical skills that are often in short supply (2014, 67). The problem with climate change is that its effects can be detected on a local level, sometimes dramatically, through catastrophic weather events such as deadly hurricanes and heat waves, but climate change per se is a scientific abstraction that works on a scalar level not directly commensurable with everyday experience. Conceptually, we may know (if we trust scientific models) that catastrophic events are made much more likely by the burning of fossil fuels that is reshaping the Earth system at a speed unknown before the industrial era. Yet the causal connections between industrial activity, meteorological patterns, and a particular heat wave escape sensory experience entirely. We perceive the heat wave; we don’t perceive the complex causality behind it. Climate change is the most egregious example of what Timothy Morton calls hyperobjects, or objects that exist on almost unthinkable timescales [and] confound our limited, fixated, self-oriented frameworks (2010, 19). Climate change confronts us with planetary rhythms and cycles that—unlike Abram’s ever-shifting forms—we struggle to know experientially. Our sensory apparatus is attuned to our immediate surroundings, not to atmospheric carbon dioxide or global sea levels. This abstraction inherent in climate change is, of course, one of the reasons why it is so difficult to find a concerted solution to the problem—and, in some areas of society, even to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Likewise, consider the claim that we are living in the Anthropocene, a term popularized by chemist Paul Crutzen in the early 2000s (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000) and that rapidly caught the imagination of cultural theorists and social scientists.¹⁰ The Anthropocene is a geological epoch marked by the planetary impact of human activities, through various processes including the production of nonbiodegradable materials (in themselves hyperobjects), the acidification of the Earth’s oceans, and the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Not only do these processes disrupt the balance of many ecosystems, triggering large-scale species extinction, but they jeopardize the environment in which our own species has flourished. Further, these dynamics seemingly elevate humanity to the role of a geological agent capable of shaping the biological and climatological future of the Earth and leaving durable traces on its crust. Scientific debates on the Anthropocene tend to revolve around two interrelated questions: Should the Anthropocene be adopted as the official name of the current geological epoch (following the Holocene), or should it rather remain a loose label? If the Anthropocene is formally inducted into the vocabulary of geology, when did it start? With the industrial revolution—that is, at the end of the eighteenth century, as Crutzen originally proposed? Or around 1950, with humanity’s ability to harness nuclear power and alter the Earth system on a scale and at a speed unprecedented in geological history (the Great Acceleration hypothesis; see Steffen et al. 2015)? Or have