Barthelme argues that fragmentation is the only way by which the reality of life can be conveyed. Life is a messy, convoluted, and multi-faceted experience, and any attempt to provide and order any meaning through the linking of events through a single viewing lens puts a filter of fantasy over the experience of life which is ultimately unhealthy for a reader. This fantastical idea that everything will fall into place with enough information to create some greater meaning for the one who knows everything presents the world in a way that can never be lived up to; this way of viewing life sets people up for failure. Truth is found not in the way that events come together but in the way that they remain separate and intrinsically un-joinable. Barthelme asserts that life is messy and that it is reductive to view it as anything less.
Both books embody this thinking of Barthelme in different ways. The work of Lily Hoang titled “A Bestiary” is written as if a reader was able to open the mind of the speaker and view what their mind remembered during the presentation of the story. There is almost never in the book a thought that sees a conclusion; the reader’s viewing of memory is always interrupted as they are passed to a new vision. Over the course of the book’s narrative, the reader is never told how each part comes together to form some kind of whole, and so at the end where Hoang seemingly stops writing without presenting a single magic lens to reveal the hidden message of the book, every piece remains separate, but it is from this disconnected state that a reader can derive meaning. This reflection of a lived life through dis-jointed pieces tells the reader that this is something they could experience.
The work of Steven Dunn titled “Water & Power” presents the reality of life to a reader by the way it acknowledges that one person cannot ever have all of the answers and can never see the whole perspective. Even though the author creates the illusion of realism in the book as indicated by both the evidence presented to the reader and by the disjointed narrative, Dunn also clearly uses different accounts to present more sides on the issue. Where Hoang could have multiple perspectives in the form of different presentations of herself and through the folk stories she presents, Dunn attaches implied names and numbers to suggest that multiple voices are all in conversation. By the nature of multiple voices, the fragmentation of the true story split between different lenses, the reader is inclined to buy into the realism of the book. Dunn’s narrative does offer a magic lens to have everything fall into place, but because it is brought about through the combination of singular lenses, it works. There is no feeling of fantasy to the truth that is brought about in Dunn’s work.
The illusion of realism is what makes these works have the weight they do. Without the illusion of life brought about by fragmentation, the lessons have an element of superficiality to them as the reader asks themselves if the revelation was only possible because the narrative’s structure made it so. The nature of realism also encourages a reader to look at their own lives not as the main character, as someone who has all the answers and to whom each event has significance and meaning, but as a part of a whole. Life is messy by nature of so many people belonging to the same experience, and it is healthy and essential that people realize they are one of many voices, and Barthelme believes that true literary realism is one way to encourage this learning. It is a way but is it the only way, or even the right way, to view the expression of realism and the importance of its purity of expression?
Fragmentation does give the ability to look at a variety of different perspectives within an individual work, but while it can be argued that these fragmented perspectives and fragmented details are giving a more accurate representation of life, we must also realize that we do not know what it is that we’re missing. Even with works such as Dunn’s and Hoang’s it is still important to note that there is no way to ever fully reveal all perspectives or to reveal all of the thoughts that pass through the writer’s mind as they write. This disjointed narrative creates, if anything, a deceptive quality, one that suggests to the reader that they are receiving all of the information they need to continue reading, as well as giving off the idea that they will be rewarded for their attempts and will be able to piece the puzzle together on their own. As well and good as it is to read something fragmented, and that is suggesting to us the idea of balance, we are still at the mercy of the writer, and how we know what they choose to add in and what they choose to leave out is unknown to us. Taking Dunn’s work Water & Power as an example we see a story brought together by various perspectives, yet a majority of these perspectives fall very much in line with an anti-military narrative, and this may be true, a good portion of the Navy may absolutely hate their experience, but can we really know this based off of Dunn’s work alone? Not really. We don’t know exactly how many people he interviewed, and we don’t know how many of those stories made it into the book, after all, this is a work that had to be curated, the pieces that were eventually published in the final work were chosen. Similarly, Hoang’s book is curated, we don’t know how much we can trust, we don’t know if what she is presenting to us is carefully curated for a certain purpose. While Barthelme can say that fragmentation is the only way to describe life, he seems to be assuming that there is no fault found with this presentation. As if life can only be seen in a fragmentary way, and that nobody can view their life as though it were running along a string.
I disagree with Barthelme’s opinion that the fragmented narratives offer no real conclusions at the end of the books. I believe that Lily Hoang and Steven Dunn both have a character arc at the end of their stories. In A Bestiary, Lily jumps back and forth in time of the memories she has had of her family, friends, romantic partners, and her work life. Throughout the book, Lily brings up essays on rats, fairytales, and the myth of the white tiger as they all tie in with the central narrative. By the end of the book, Lily creates her own version of the Three Little Pigs by having three women kick Prince Charming out of the house. Lily learns to celebrate her own independence and realizes that she does not need a Prince Charming in her life.
In Steven Dunn’s Water & Power, Steven holds a collection of soldier’s and soldier’s wives he has interviewed, rape allegations, relationships with strippers and sex workers, volunteer work, memories of returning home, and other stories that represent Navy life. The entire book is an experimental collage of the many experiences people in the Navy go through. The book ends with a war bombing in Asmanzai and a 23 paged list of people who killed Iraqi civilians. In other words, the book makes the conclusion that you cannot justify the actions of war.
The question presented does indeed pose many good inquiries for the future for looking at the set up of a piece of literature and the way an author decides to tackle storytelling, whether it brings in realism and fragmentation. The structure of a novel can really completely change whether it is classified as being an entirely realism-based story. Barthelme argues that fragmentation is the only way by which the reality of life can be conveyed. Both A Bestiary by Lily Hoang and Water & Power by Steven Dunn represent Barthelme’s way of thinking in different ways. The book A Bestiary is written in a way that makes the reader feel like they can see the narrator’s process of remembering. On the other hand, Water & Power presents itself to the reader by acknowledging that one person cannot have all of the answers or accurately represent the whole perspective. By the nature of multiple voices, the fragmentation of the true story split between different lenses, the reader is inclined to buy into the realism of the book. This reflection of a lived life through dis-jointed pieces tells the reader that this is something they could experience. This fragmented portrayal does give the reader the ability to look at a variety of different perspectives within an individual work. While it can also be argued that these fragmented perspectives and fragmented details are giving a more accurate representation of life, the reader must also realize that there is no way to tell what is missing or intentionally being left out. It is important to acknowledge that there is no way to fully reveal all perspectives or to reveal all of the thoughts that pass through the writer’s mind as they write. While Barthelme can argue that fragmentation is the only way to describe life, he seems to be overlooking any issues with that form of presentation. Thus, it makes sense to seemingly take a more neutral stance to the presented analysis at hand.
Post-Modern American Fiction 