[Nils Monad]

I would like to start somethig here, a string, to sort out the differences between my two favorite forms, that being contained in the subject liner: The break in the continental tradition, where I think Proust is the nexus -- the narratorial flow of consciousness and the transgressives, who claim him, they being writers like Claude Simon, Lautreaumont (out of historical context), Bataille, Kristeva, Joyce, Beckett and the hard, Austrian/German/Prague connection of Kafka, Musil, Hesse, Broch, et. al.
Is there a way (lying to the sides of Proust) to join the discursive German style with the sexualist, psychological prose. I think, critical to this examination must be Rilke's one novel, The Diaries of Malte Laurids Brigge, which influenced many of the Germans, was itself, I believe, coterminous with Proust.
What I am having difficulty grappling with is the matter of style expressed here... The transgressive school, often using sex or a very unorthodox structure in their works, versus the German form of referencing highly philosophical dialogues.
I'm not sure -- and perhaps that will be a problem -- what it is I am after, or asking of others to contribute, but I believe examination of these styles would be helpful to my personal writings.
I also think, somehow, there is a tie between modern Russian literature (beginning with notes from underground) and all of this. Persons familiar with the poet Bely, the thinker, Kojeve and others, may have a critical eye for what I am after.
Dostoyevsky was criticized in the West for exploding the story, as was Tolstoy... telling it in too grand of a style. What the reader wants, however, to my mind, is far too much of a concern, though, I think, it must be considered in the evolution of the whole thing. We live in a world now, where Kafka, Dostoyevsky (for various reasons), of course Shakespeare (but perhaps not Dante or Cervantes) would not be possible... and I am concerned, though nodding to the need to overthrow tradition, that we are excluding something else in this information age, which has allowed the perfection of drivel. And who could imagine someone publishing in America, say, by telling the publisher, the editors, the agent... "No one is allowed to touch one word of what I have written"? To tell them, "I presume no one on your staff is competent to meddle with what I have done." I understand there are a lot of poets here at this site (and they seem very good, I might add), but I can't help wondering, with their mastery of prose, whether they are great writers who woefully (and for various reasons) cannot or find themselves unable to tell a story. This is where the transgressives come in, because I think they have made it easier, broke the ground, for the non-story teller to write the important novel. On the other hand, the Expressionist writers, though debunking the story... breaking genre lines, by making fantasy without allowing it to be science fiction... have done the same, in a different way -- and yet, in the world's largest publishing area -- the reader, for whatever reasons (why, why, why -- do you think?) doesn't want either of these traditions.
Certainly in the old days there was not as much editorial capability, nor the competition... but this does not seem to explain how these light-year old stories still can stand up, look better than, what we produce now. Does anyone know of an author who is, say, shunning the word processer, and writing from scratch, on a type writer -- how can the automatic voice, with little competition against it, end up better than the refined voice, with all that competition?
But has this strayed from the initial question? Good writing always takes time, that is the answer, but how much of it is just thought, contemplation, rather than rushing to push words around?
Anyway, these are just some thoughts to jumpstart a subject.