In Fosse’s trilogy, how is what matters. The story does not exist merely to say where it is going. László, Bernard, Murnane — all of them are about how. Hunger is how, Stoner is how. In Dostoevsky and Leo (Tolstoy), how is primary. Their where is also magnificent — especially in works like Anna Karenina (though even there, how shines through — remember Anna preparing to take her bag).
In Moby-Dick, how is of utmost importance — yet it also has a where of equal power (that’s why it remains the greatest novel ever written). In Knausgård’s My Struggle series, where takes precedence — it may not astonish like Proust, but the how is still far from poor. In Proust, how is the essence (the later volumes lack as much story as the first ones — they’re more like bridge-works leading to the final two books). Yet even there, there is a where — the becoming of Marcel as a writer — though still, how rules supreme.
Solenoid is how. The where hardly matters. In Murakami, there is only how, repeated endlessly. In Suicide Museum, how doesn’t dominate — it’s where that does, and that’s precisely its weakness (the final twist was childish).
In genre fiction, where is what counts, but those who can write how well — Nesbø, Simenon, Higashino — stand apart.
Turning to Malayalam: in Naalukettu, where is central — the protagonist’s purpose is to bring down the nālukettu, that symbol of a suffocating past; he comes to realize that it was not people, but the system itself, that caused his suffering. In Kayar, how is central — but where too exists; by the end, one senses that even Thakazhi himself is uncertain about that balance. In Mathilukal, how dominates.
Asuravithu, to me, is how (though not for everyone), and so is Aranazhika Neram. Both are firmly structured novels, as most Malayalam novels tend to be.
In Meesha, there are moments of astonishing how, yet the where confuses the author himself. In Soosanna, there is only how, ultimately. In Pattunool Puzhuvu, the how touched me deeply — the where became irrelevant.
It’s in this manner that books can, and perhaps should, be differentiated and evaluated — by their how and where.