DFW's style runs through all of his writing.
"Don't Drink Drive Smoke and Fly"
Man to Computer:"did we bring batteries?" Computer: ......
Art doesn't look as good when it goes down in value"
"jimmy crack corn and I don't care"
Anyway. It was necessary for the essentialism of the Classical era to give way to the fluid, contextual, self-referential artistic values of the Modernist and Postmodernist eras. The concept of Being had to recognize the reality of Becoming. However, as impossible as it may be to remain in an aesthetic of irony and anxiety, it's just as impossible to transcend it by returning to a nostalgic sense of certainty and stability.
Then I suppose it's just my own wishful thinking, that literature can learn the lessons of Modernism and Postmodernism and move forward. But maybe I'm underestimating the power of these fads and fashions. Sure, writers can just ignore a hundred years of daring, original artistic achievements and revert back to Romanticism like nothing ever happened.
But should they?
The same for modernism. Who would deny that the Victorians had a huge influence on the majority of modernists. By creating modernism as a rejection of Victorianism, Victorianism naturally becomes the starting point, the imaginative core of modernism.
No one is saying the anyone will ignore Modernism and it's step-child post-modernism. What he was expressing (in my opinion) will be a purposeful rejection of many of the core qualities of modernism, like Romanticism was a rejection of many core qualities of neo-classims, and modernism was a rejection of many core qualities of Romanticism/Victorianism. To reject something is by default to admit that it is an influence. You cannot reject what you don't know (well yes you can, but we are talking about intelligent cultured people not the hoi polloi ) Regardless of the fact weather it be positive or negative, influence is still influence.
Last edited by Alexander III; 09-18-2012 at 10:52 AM.
I at least cited Beckett as an example of an eminent modernist/postmodernist author whose work doesn't lack emotion or sincerity. I could name plenty of other prominent examples like Vonnegut, Delillo, Barth, and Coover. Since you haven't named any writers who supposedly personify the cold, cerebral, flippant attitude you associate with modernism and postmodernism, I'll assume you're more comfortable making generalizations.
And and of course plenty of crappy romantic poets did sentimentality badly, much like plenty of crappy post-modernists did irony badly. That is inheritanlty assumed.