I said:
Back when we were discussing Chapter Four, you said: "The novel, meanwhile, slyly reinforces its aesthetic concerns: the danger of misidentification, of chasing illusions of wholeness constructed by others, including literature itself. --- Could you kindly expand on "including literature itself" and allude to an example or two.
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely—and it's an excellent thread to pull on, especially in a novel as self-aware and layered as Invidicum.
When I said “including literature itself,” I meant that Invidicum doesn’t just diagnose the sickness of envy as it plays out in social and psychological life—it also turns the mirror toward aesthetic forms like literature, showing how even literature can seduce readers (and writers) into chasing illusions of wholeness, mastery, or identity. In other words, literature can be part of the very system that fuels envy and alienation.
Brodsky embeds this critique directly into the structure and style of Invidicum. The novel refuses traditional narrative satisfaction—it offers no heroic arcs, no redemptive closure, and no reassuring psychology. Instead, it gives us fragmented voices, contradictory impulses, and stylistic overload. This formal instability deliberately frustrates our craving for coherence. It denies the reader that “false wholeness” that more conventional fiction might offer.
A few key ways this happens in Invidicum:
-
Jean Rhys’s presence as a character: Her inclusion as a kind of ghost or fictional interlocutor is metafictional. Rhys’s own writing often dramatized the cost of internalizing external ideals (e.g., beauty, romance, social status), and Brodsky builds on this—placing her in a novel that critiques those same aesthetic traps. But her presence also raises the question: is literature itself (even brilliant, soul-searching literature like Rhys's) complicit in training us to idealize suffering, to glamorize self-abasement? The novel keeps her at arm's length, as if to say: even your literary heroes can't save you.
-
The characters’ constant referencing of narrative tropes: Eden’s girlfriend filming her imaginary Lifetime movie in her head, or Eden himself manipulating the “therapeutic gaze” as if he's writing/performing a script—these are signs that people are not just shaped by envy of others but by storyforms, clichés, and aesthetic templates that they’ve absorbed uncritically. Literature, film, pop culture—these don't just reflect reality; they mold desires. And Brodsky is asking: what happens when our only means of understanding ourselves is through such scripted roles?
-
The refusal to offer a stable “narrator” or center: In traditional novels, readers often identify with a central consciousness or narrative arc—a way of orienting themselves. Invidicum withholds that. Instead, it floods the reader with shifting registers, digressions, tonal ambiguity. The novel says: don’t look here for the “right name,” for clarity, for a clean story that will make your envy legible and solvable. Literature, too, can be an Invidicum—a balm, a drug, a mask.
So when Brodsky skewers the desire to name the sickness, he's also warning against the literary impulse to fix and frame reality in neat aesthetic terms. He’s suggesting that literature can seduce us into thinking we understand ourselves when really, we’ve just swapped one illusion for another.
In this way, Invidicum is as much a philosophical investigation into the limits of narrative as it is a psychological and cultural study of envy. It critiques envy as social pathology but also as narrative trap: the delusion that wholeness lies just beyond the next paragraph, the next chapter, the next self we can write into being.
That’s part of what makes the novel both exhilarating and disorienting. It’s not just about envy—it performs the very structures that perpetuate envy and implicates literature as one of them.
I said:
In light of what you are saying, it strikes me Michal Brodsky might be a tad skeptical when novels such as Bright Lights, Big City and Steppenwolf have the book's protagonist make a breakthrough in the final chapter.
ChatGPT said:
Absolutely—your instinct is spot on. Michael Brodsky, judging from Invidicum and his broader body of work, seems deeply skeptical of any “breakthrough” that arrives wrapped in a neat narrative bow. He’s especially wary of the kind of late-chapter revelation or transformation that reassures the reader (and the character) that a crisis of identity, alienation, or desire can be resolved through insight, redemption, or a sudden change in perspective.
Both Bright Lights, Big City and Steppenwolf offer, in their own ways, climactic moments where the protagonist comes to terms with himself or the world:
-
In Bright Lights, Big City, the narrator, having spiraled through cocaine-fueled disillusionment, finally reaches a kind of hard-won self-recognition—he opens the window to a new day, a symbol of renewal.
-
In Steppenwolf, Hesse’s Harry Haller moves from suicidal despair to the first glimpses of a liberated consciousness, through the surreal experiences of the Magic Theater.
For Brodsky, such arcs would likely feel too... resolved, too complicit with what he might see as the therapeutic-capitalist-cultural machine—what Deleuze and Guattari might call the "Oedipalizing" of desire into tidy consumable forms. He’d question whether these breakthroughs aren’t just new, shinier illusions—fresh costumes for the self to try on, freshly baited traps laid by the same machinery that caused the crisis to begin with.
In Invidicum, Brodsky stages what looks like the desire for such breakthrough moments—Eden, Cantor, Borkman, and the rest are constantly groping toward understanding, trying to “name” the problem, trying to get one step ahead of themselves. But just as they get close to a breakthrough, the ground shifts. The prose doubles back, multiplies meanings, sabotages the arc. It’s as though the novel is saying: You want transcendence? Too bad. You’re stuck in syntax.
Brodsky doesn’t merely withhold redemption—he problematizes the very desire for it. His characters don’t need new epiphanies; they need new grammars of existence, new ways to speak and be that aren’t contaminated from the start by the cultural logic of envy, performance, and false wholeness.
So yes, I think Brodsky would be sharply critical of any novel that slides, perhaps unconsciously, into what we might call narrative closure therapy—treating the protagonist’s life like a screenplay that just needs a satisfying ending to be meaningful. He’s not interested in catharsis or character growth if it means giving the reader (or the character) a false sense of resolution.
He’d rather leave the wound open and let the language bleed.
Comments
Post a Comment