There is a particular moment in Cloud Atlas where the reader realises what David Mitchell is doing to them. The first narrative breaks off mid-sentence. So does the second. And the third. Five stories are opened and abandoned before one is allowed to finish, after which the book reverses and closes each of them in turn. The effect on a first reading is mild irritation followed by something closer to vertigo, because the structure has made an argument the prose never states: that everything here is nested inside everything else, and that a life is a fragment somebody later finds.
You can dislike that book. What you cannot really do is separate its meaning from its shape, and that is the category of fiction I want to write about — novels where the architecture is not a delivery mechanism for the story but part of what the story says.
Structure as a claim
Most fiction uses structure the way a house uses joists. It holds the thing up and you are not meant to look at it. A smaller set of books put the structure in the foreground and ask you to read it as content.
Pale Fire is the purest case. Nabokov gives you a 999-line poem by a dead poet and then a commentary by an editor, Charles Kinbote, who is convinced the poem is secretly about him. The novel is the gap between those two documents. Nothing in the prose tells you that the commentary is a delusion colonising somebody else's work; the layout tells you, because you can see the poem sitting there, plainly about something else, while the notes march away from it.
House of Leaves does something similar with typography. A manuscript about a film that may not exist, describing a house that is larger inside than out, annotated by a narrator who is coming apart, with the text itself starting to spiral, invert and fall through the page as the corridors lengthen. The page becomes the house. It is a trick, and it is also genuinely the most efficient way to make a reader feel a space they cannot map.
Jennifer Egan's A Visit from the Goon Squad includes a chapter presented as a PowerPoint deck made by a twelve-year-old about the pauses in her family's rock songs. Described that way it sounds insufferable. Read in place, it is the most emotionally direct section of the book, largely because the flat institutional format is so badly suited to what it is carrying, and the mismatch is the point.
George Saunders builds Lincoln in the Bardo out of a chorus of ghosts and a collage of quotations, some real and some invented, that contradict each other about basic facts such as what colour the moon was on a particular night. The form argues that a historical event is a crowd of incompatible witnesses, which is a difficult thing to assert in ordinary narration without sounding like an essay.
This is old
It is worth resisting the idea that experiment is a contemporary development that the internet caused. Laurence Sterne published a novel with a black page, a marbled page, a missing chapter and a narrator who takes three volumes to get himself born, and he did it in the 1760s. Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveler is from 1979 and consists largely of the opening chapters of ten novels you never get to finish, addressed to a reader called "you" who is trying to read the book you are holding.
What is true is that a certain amount of formal strangeness has become commercially ordinary. Matt Haig's The Midnight Library, a branching-lives premise with a non-linear middle, has sold well over nine million copies. Susanna Clarke's Piranesi is a novel assembled from the journal entries of a man using a calendar he invented, and it was a word-of-mouth bestseller. Neither of those is avant-garde, and that is the point: techniques that were difficult forty years ago have been absorbed into books people read on holiday.
The attention-span argument, which is usually made with a false statistic
The standard explanation for all this is that fragmented fiction mirrors fragmented modern attention. You will often see it supported by the claim that human attention spans have fallen to around eight seconds, shorter than a goldfish. That figure is junk. It traces back to a 2015 Microsoft marketing report, and the underlying source turned out to be unverifiable when the BBC went looking for it.
The observable behaviour argues the other way anyway. The same readers supposedly incapable of sustained attention are finishing eight-hundred-page fantasy novels and rereading them. Whatever is happening, it is not a general collapse in the capacity to concentrate on a story.
I would put the causation differently and more modestly. Formal experiment is cheaper to publish than it used to be, easier to discover once published, and easier to explain to a reader who has encountered a non-linear film or a game that resets. Readers are not differently wired. They are differently practised.
What difficulty costs, and when it is worth it
Structural experiment is not free. Every interruption is an invitation to stop reading, and a reader who is being asked to hold six timelines is spending attention that is not going into the characters.
Infinite Jest is the extreme case: several hundred endnotes, some with footnotes of their own, several of them pages long, in a book whose chronology is organised around years named after consumer products. Wallace was explicit that the endnotes were meant to disrupt linear reading. That is a real artistic intention and it also produces a book most people who buy it do not finish. Whether that trade is worth it is a genuine question rather than a rhetorical one, and the honest answer varies by reader.
The test I apply, as a reader rather than a critic, is whether the difficulty is load-bearing. If you could straighten the book into chronological order and lose nothing but a little suspense, the structure was suspense management dressed as philosophy. If straightening it destroys the meaning, the structure was the meaning. Pale Fire cannot be straightened. A thriller that withholds the first chapter until the end usually can.
The second test is whether the book gives you something to hold. Difficult novels that work almost always supply a compensating anchor: a strong voice, a concrete setting, a simple emotional situation underneath the complicated frame. Piranesi has an extremely complicated premise and an extremely simple feeling — a kind, lonely man who loves his house. That is why it is readable and why a lot of formally similar books are not.
Reading one without feeling stupid
Three things help, and none of them is intellectual firepower.
Let the first reading be bad. Structural novels are generally designed so that the first pass is partial by construction. Confusion at page sixty is not a failure to keep up; frequently it is the experience the book is arranging.
Keep the thinnest possible notes — names, dates, who is telling this. Not analysis. Just enough to stop the frustration of losing a thread you had.
And separate two different feelings. There is the productive disorientation of a book withholding something on purpose, and there is the flat feeling of a book that is disorganised and hoping you will assume it is deep. They feel different after a while. Trusting that instinct is most of what critical reading actually is.
Linear storytelling is not dying and never was. Most novels published this year will begin at the beginning, because for most stories that is the arrangement that lets the material do its work. The interesting question is never whether a book is linear. It is whether the arrangement it chose is the one that makes it mean what it means.
Tags
Taresh Sharan