This article feels disorganized. He switches context freely without alerting the reader. I cannot tell if it is an intentionally wistful style, or just disorganization. I’m curious, since the author claims to be a novelist and obviously cares deeply about the state of the modern novel, why is it written this way?
If you’re the author, I’d love to hear your response.
Having read the article, I don't think it is disorganized. It makes an assertion, supports the assertion, explores the consequences, then returns to another aspect of the assertion. In the end, she returns to the theme and restates it.
The context switches, such as they are, come with the traditional signal to most readers: the paragraph. Yet each paragraph is built in sequels (like you would a novel): action (assertion), reaction (consequence).
Paragraph by paragraph:
Assertion from title: Novels are still important.
Question: Are they really? Reflection as context.
Assertion: I fear modern media leaves me only frightened.
Contradiction: Realization -- It won't.
Assertion: Novels exist outside of the political upheaval they arise from.
Resolution: Doctor Zhivago as example of proof.
Section break (as a notice to the reader).
Assertion: Novels are an intimate communication between writer and reader.
Contradiction: "No one reads books anymore."
Assertion: People still read books.
Reflection: Orthodoxy of publishing and consumption has changed.
Assertion: The novel's purpose is to encapsulate its own world ("to be what it is").
Reflection: Anna Karenina was not the novel Tolstoy set out to write, but it was the novel he had to write because he was skilled enough to write it. The story was in control.
Resolution: Good novels matter because they exist as complete in themselves without being slaves to the social forces from which they arise.
Break
...
She continues in this form, weaving layers onto the theme, like one writes a novel. It seems to me like a clever way to write an editorial.
If you’re the author, I’d love to hear your response.