Redefining Transgressive Fiction: From Taboo to Transformation

Recently, I had an interview with a PhD student who is writing his thesis on transgressive fiction. Our conversation wandered through the usual references such as Palahniuk and soon turned to the question that has haunted literary criticism for more than a decade: Is transgressive fiction dead?

I have been working on a paper that attempts to answer this question from another angle. My project, Redefining Transgressive Fiction: From Taboo to Transformation, explores whether the concept itself can be rescued from the narrow associations it has accumulated since the 1990s. The discussion with that student reminded me why I wanted to write this essay: to trace how the term was born, how it has been misunderstood, and how it might evolve into something more reflective, relevant, and alive.

In this post, I give you a preview of my thoughts on this matter.

Image source

The 1990s and the Birth of a Label

The expression transgressive fiction first appeared in 1990s when Michael Silverblatt used it in a Los Angeles Times article to describe a group of writers (Ellis, Palahniuk, A. M. Homes, Dennis Cooper) who used extreme content to expose the hypocrisy of American culture. Their novels were filled with violence, sexual excess, addiction, and moral decay. They wanted, as Silverblatt put it, to hurt us.

It was an age of cultural backlash, postmodern irony, and new taboos. To transgress meant to violate: to cross the line that polite society pretended did not exist. Readers felt that these writers were doing something dangerous, something literature had not dared to do since Burroughs or Genet. But the fascination with moral shock was also short-lived. As the 1990s turned into the digital 2000s, transgression became a marketing term: provocation without purpose, rebellion without risk.

Why the Concept Became Stuck

The problem with the term is that it never developed beyond its journalistic origins. Transgressive fiction was used to describe content (what was written) rather than form or function (why it was written). The phrase became shorthand for gore, obscenity, or nihilism, and criticism largely stopped there. The deeper aesthetic and ethical questions, what the act of transgression reveals about human consciousness, were rarely explored.

Scholars have tried to correct this. M. Keith Booker connected transgression to the carnivalesque and to Kristeva’s theory of abjection. Robin Mookerjee repositioned it within the Menippean satiric tradition, reading the genre as a moral satire that exposes hypocrisy through excess. More recently, Coco d’Hont has reinterpreted transgression as a socio-ideological process, a way societies negotiate and renew their moral boundaries.

Each of these perspectives adds nuance, but the field remains fragmented. We still talk about “transgression” as though it were an external act; a writer breaking a rule, a character crossing a moral line when, in fact, the most powerful transgressions occur within.

What We Mean When We Say “Transgression”

The word transgression comes from the Latin transgredi which means to step across. Philosophers such as Georges Bataille and Michel Foucault treated that act of crossing as more than rebellion; it was a confrontation with the limits that define what it means to be human. For Bataille, the erotic and the sacred are connected through the same movement: desire pushes against prohibition, not to destroy it but to reveal its necessity. Foucault saw transgression as an act that illuminates the boundaries of power, not one that abolishes them.

Seen this way, transgression is not simply about outrage. It is about awareness. Every time we cross a line, we become conscious of the line itself and of the forces that drew it. In literature, this awareness can take many forms: moral discomfort, psychological introspection, aesthetic disorientation. The purpose is not to scandalize but to awaken.

Why Redefinition Matters

When I began reading the contemporary novels often described as transgressive by authors like Ottessa Moshfegh, Virginie Despentes, and Sayaka Murata, I noticed a shift. Their works are not built around the spectacle of violence or taboo. The transgression lies elsewhere: in moral ambivalence, in refusal, in quiet dissent. These writers are less interested in breaking rules than in revealing the exhaustion that follows when all the rules have already been broken.

The research problem, then, is definitional instability. Transgressive fiction continues to be treated as a stylistic label rather than a theoretical concept, reduced to surface provocations while its deeper mechanisms remain under-theorized. My paper aims to fill this gap by offering a new definition: transgressive fiction as an aesthetic of transformation.

This redefinition positions transgression as a process of ethical and psychological self-exposure. Therefore, I believe that writer’s task is not to offend the reader’s morals but to reveal how those morals function. Consequently, the real boundary is not social but internal. So, a text becomes transgressive when it forces both author and reader to confront what they have repressed (shame, complicity, desire) and to emerge changed.

In that sense, transgression becomes a form of consciousness. It is not a crime against morality; it is a method of seeing.