Post-postmodernism (For the love of God we can't come up with a better name)

[Alexander III]

I have been reading up on post-postmodernism (seriously is there no creativity left in the academic world that a better name cannot be found?) trying to examine the academic perspective on a gestalt which is changing, amongst the hoi poloi one can see the subtle yet consistent change that is occurring and naturally the arts are starting to reflect it.

Nonetheless Here is a quote which I found to be rather fascinating from david Foster Wallace:

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "


Would anyone care to discuss the quote and also their general opinions on Post-postmodernism( you know damn this, that word is truly unbearable, for the sake of elegance let us just refer to the new movement as Carthage in this thread. The word post-postmodernism is at once pathetic, ridiculous and tragic - Carthage on the other hand is entirely respectable)

[OrphanPip]

I don't think post-postmodernism exists. At the same time I don't really recognize the break between modernism and pomo.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I always thought literary periods were given names after they'd taken place.

[Desolation]

Man, Wallace has been coming up a lot recently since I picked up Infinite Jest...I find his quote very refreshing. Rebel culture has fallen into a state of dogma that isn't very different from the mainstream society that it was trying to fight back against. It can get very tiring. Going to a punk show looking like a regular dude will get you just as much hostility as going to church dressed like Sid Vicious. And I don't think there's any meaningful difference between calling someone a "square repressed prude" and calling them a "slut."

I agree with his sentiments, basically. I don't know if there's anything the next generation of literary rebels should be...I think it would be nice if they were just themselves, whatever that means...They can be the hipsters Wallace disdains if they want to, or they can be the sort that Wallace calls for. There's more than one way to be genuine.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It can get very tiring. Going to a punk show looking like a regular dude will get you just as much hostility as going to church dressed like Sid Vicious.

Hmmm, I don't know about this. Have you ever been to a punk show? I haven't, but I've been to Lenny of death metal shows (which probably have a more extreme crowd) and you see "regular dudes" everywhere. Hell, my50-something dad will go in a tucked in collared shirt and slacks (literally) and he doesn't get so much as a sideways glance. If anything, the crowd likes seeing straight laced people at the show. Now, you're telling me the same thing is going to happen when a guy dressed in black who has long hair, piercings in his face, and barely any skin that isn't tattooed is going to get the same reaction going into a church on Sunday? I find this unlikely.

[stlukesguild]

Well... I don't see the problem with the term. In the visual arts we had Neo-Classicism, Post-Impressionism, Neo-Geo, and Post-Modernism. I think the terms "Post-something" simply defines a movement lacking a clear unified direction that is yet at the same time clearly a break with the period prior. The break with Modernism is absolutely clear in the visual arts... and I suspect not less so in literature. I have often thought that if I were to rename the movement I'd call it "Neo-Mannerism" for the entire movement is "mannered"... and like the art movement known as "Mannerism" it involves a rejection (to a certain extent) and a reassessment... or rather a struggle to come to terms with the period prior (The Renaissance/Modernism)... a period of incredible achievement and optimism.

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "

In the traditional visual arts... painting... there has been a push toward a return to certain traditions of "realism"... not so much as rejection of Modernism... but out of a recognition that Modernism just offers one more possibility... no more of less valid that that of the centuries prior. The term "New Old-Masters" has been bandied about... along with an interest in the old system of artistic training ala apprenticeships and artist's ateliers. Undoubtedly, this has been helped by the economic crash and the suspicion that earning an art degree through colleges or universities is not only grossly overpriced... but highly ineffective at transmitting the skills needed by artists. Thus we have have had the glut of "Conceptual Artists" who can't draw better than a third-grader... but can "think deep thoughts" and know how to use the language of "Art Speak" to defend their crap.

I just finished Tom Wolfe's satirical overview of Modernism and Art, The Painted Word. Wolfe's book ends with the rise of Photo-Realism/Super-Realism and he is quite bemused by the outrage of Modernist critics/theorists/theologians who are outraged that the "Philistines" have returned... the "lowest common denominator" of Middle-America. Wolfe is especially bemused by the manner in which Modernists and the avant-garde go out of their way to make sure that they are in every way anti-bourgeois... that they defy and insult the taste of the public... the masses... that they create an art which is light-years beyond the puny intellect of the insensible and tasteless middle-class... and then having succeeded admirably... indignantly lament (without the least sense of the irony involved) that the public doesn't buy their product.

But then... as Bill Watterson in his classic comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes suggested with his usual insight... and in full recognition of the irony involved in the art worldi:

"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist’s statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance."

Thus when those artists who did return to "realism"... or those who never left... begin to sell well.. it was proclaimed as the "triumph of mediocrity!" Perhaps that is a badge any artist should be proud to wear.

[cafolini]

I'll be the blue knight approaching the ivory tower. I already sent a letter to Whitman to see if I can get a copy of one of the good atoms that anyone has.

[Desolation]

Have you ever been to a punk show?

Of course I have. I grew up in the punk scene in Los Angeles. Most of the punks I've known have been very mild mannered and polite people (this goes doubly for the musicians themselves...I'll always remember Henry Rollins as the very coolest rock star I've ever met), but the extreme punks don't take kindly to anyone they perceive as an "outsider." Things were a lot friendlier in the scene when I had spiky red hair...Although, to be fair, un-ironically wearing a suit jacket to a punk show probably is a bit much.

I think the reason it's different at death metal shows is that metal tends to attract a much wider and more moderate audience, so there's more acceptance of outsiders, even by the extremists. Punk is very strict about its counterculture ethos. The idea is that it's not supposed to just be music that you enjoy, it's supposed to be your entire lifestyle.

[Charles Darnay]

The literary world never really embraced the "neo" title that the art and architecture world did, but it seems that this quote is suggesting a form of neo-modernism. And I would tend to agree. The literary world seems to be getting tired of the "literary tricks" epitomized by the oulipo movement, and moving back to a realism that reflects the "values" of our time - as early modernism did.

Modernism sprang from the fact that people grew tired of the Old Victorians: all the frills that adorned the great works of Dickens, Eliot, Hardy &. don't do anything anymore. Similarly, You wouldn't be able to publish another Finnegan's Wake in 2012.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course I have. I grew up in the punk scene in Los Angeles. Most of the punks I've known have been very mild mannered and polite people (this goes doubly for the musicians themselves...I'll always remember Henry Rollins as the very coolest rock star I've ever met), but the extreme punks don't take kindly to anyone they perceive as an "outsider." Things were a lot friendlier in the scene when I had spiky red hair...Although, to be fair, un-ironically wearing a suit jacket to a punk show probably is a bit much.

I think the reason it's different at death metal shows is that metal tends to attract a much wider and more moderate audience, so there's more acceptance of outsiders, even by the extremists. Punk is very strict about its counterculture ethos. The idea is that it's not supposed to just be music that you enjoy, it's supposed to be your entire lifestyle.

You're probably right--Punk probably is more about the culture than metal is, which is more about the music (arguably, and that's not meant as an insult or complement to either genre). I remember seeing an interview of Henry Rollins where he said one of the main reasons he wanted to get out of punk rock and Black Flag was the extremist fans, which included neo-nazis (the antithesis of Rollins stands for, ironically).

[Kyriakos]

Should be "hoi polloi" by the way ("the many"; "the crowd")

[JBI]

That just sounds stupid.

As for post-postmodernism, well, post-modernism should have been termed post-modernisms, as it was relatively different everywhere. Modernism is probably the most interesting of these 'isms' in that it is quite a universal phenomenon which is still going on today - this sort of modern sensibility - the literature of which is found everywhere, but in reality is a mere off-shoot of the 19th century's realist work. In that sense the narrative of modernism is the coming to terms with a time so apart from the past that in terms of literature, that there is no possible cohesion through letters - no community of artists who all know each other, no formal movement of representation, no real identity or self - in itself an off shoot of the rise of nationalism. Post-modernism is the bastard child of the lament for the loss of cohesion. In many senses it is what comes after the loss, this in between state.

I think now, being removed by several degrees from the pre-modern world order, we no longer lament it. In that sense, post-modernism is dead, and people do not feel bad being sincere anymore.

as for this need for formal revision - not really. The basic novel has always remained, and most of the surviving canonical post-modern texts are relatively standard in their narration. The more polemic ones are already as abandoned as Gertrude Stein's incomprehensible gibberish.

The novel itself is an exhausted, weak form, which yields itself to repetition and tedium. I don't care if it is post-modern, or modern, or realist, it is all generally the same genre, and all quite similar. American prose in particular is bound to a repetitive scheme - the real post-modern innovators were International - particularly Latin Americans, who were far more creative in their breaking of form (they still managed to write enjoyable prose, unlike many of their American counterparts).

[Kafka's Crow]

I came across the term post-postmodernism around 17 years ago when I embarked on a life-long journey that involved the study of modernism and postmodernism. I was told that I was already obsolete ('dead on paper'). I don't know. The dominant theme of modernism was the end of civilisation, postmodernism was about disillusionment and what ever comes next- CARTHAGE- well it is better than the alternatives, should deal with an all encompassing dishonesty, the death of the good and and adumbration of total and utter hypocrisy, voluntary or forced. Total death of the good side of human nature. This is dark and disgusting but we need to produce art like Baudelaire's and Lautreamont's, like Kathy Acker's. What else is there? We have died of boredom. Irony helped the postmodernists as dirge was the song of the modernist, what have we got? Plastic smiles and painted happiness purchased at high spiritual and monitory price. The total and utter triumph of the capital and the control it exerts on our lives in every single sphere, what have we got now that we could call the 'authentic mode of being'? We are like the Africans in 19th century who sold their freedom for beads and mirrors.

[Kyriakos]

Not sure what you meant as sounding stupid, but to most it should have been deemed as evident i was mentioning how the OP spelled wrongly the term "hoi polloi" as "hoi poloi" ;)

[mal4mac]

David Foster Wallace:

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels... who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "


Would anyone care to discuss the quote and also their general opinions on Post-postmodernism, you know damn this, that word is truly unbearable, for the sake of elegance let us just refer to the new movement as Carthage in this thread. The word post-postmodernism is at once pathetic, ridiculous and tragic - Carthage on the other hand is entirely respectable)

Carthage? Why not call it "new realism"? Who would be the poster boys for this movement? Dickens? Primo Levi? Just read a biography of the latter, he dismissed Proust as "boring", and condemned Beckett for not being clear about what he was complaining about. Ian McEwan was having a go at modernists on Newsnight recently, and backing his kind of "straightforward" novel writing. Is he post-postmodernist?

[mal4mac]

Going to a punk show looking like a regular dude will get you just as much hostility as going to church dressed like Sid Vicious.

I used to do that all the time in the 1980s and never experienced any hostility. Are you speaking from experience? Maybe punks today have become more self-conscious?

[PeterL]

Give it a little longer, and post modernism will die. Thepeople who originally pushed are dead or dying, and it isn't as popular in academia as it was. Even some of its early proponents (Umberto Eco for one) have stepped aside. It is old and dying, and the longer people look at it, the less they see in it.

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to do that all the time in the 1980s and never experienced any hostility. Are you speaking from experience? Maybe punks today have become more self-conscious?

I can confirm that many modern punks are ironically quite nazi-like about it. I once went to a punk show in a yellow sundress, I was a DK fan ("punk ain't no religious cult, punk means thinking for yourself, you ain't hardcore cos you spike your hair," ect.) so I figured it would be more in keeping with the spirit of "punk" to wear something normal than the typical uniform, and some guy dumped a plastic cup of beer over my head for it. It's like they adopted the clothes, and the anger, and all of the violence and gross sh*t (the spitting), but abandoned the original essence of punk which was the struggle against uniformity.

[kelby_lake]

I thought that post-post modernism was basically the same as post-modernism apart from the fact that it's happening now rather than in the seventies.

[mal4mac]

I can confirm that many modern punks are ironically quite nazi-like about it. I once went to a punk show in a yellow sundress, I was a DK fan ("punk ain't no religious cult, punk means thinking for yourself, you ain't hardcore cos you spike your hair," ect.) so I figured it would be more in keeping with the spirit of "punk" to wear something normal than the typical uniform, and some guy dumped a plastic cup of beer over my head for it. It's like they adopted the clothes, and the anger, and all of the violence and gross sh*t (the spitting), but abandoned the original essence of punk which was the struggle against uniformity.

A yellow sun dress is asking for it, unless you are male :)

Did you not expect that something like that might happen? How did you react? I'd have enjoyed it, rubbed it in, "beer shampoo, nice", and laughed as it stained my pretty fabric.

A yellow sun dress is symbolic of normality (or hippie!) and some violence, short of physical harm, should be expected, if not desired! You're hardcore if you can laugh at your pretty dress being stained beyond recovery, and you certainly shouldn't complain about it.

And your "nazi-like" comment is way over the top - ironic or otherwise - if you get beaten up and transported to a death camp you can start using that comparison. ( I've just read Ian Thomson's excellent biography of Primo Levi and I'm now hyper-sensitive to misuse of "nazi-like".)

I used to just wear my day clothes at punk gigs - as a computer hacker they were as tattered & nasty as most punk dress. Any beer spilled on them would have been amusing, but no punks felt the need to do it, even in the mosh pit...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

mal, everything you wrote above is complete bull****. Maybe you're being sarcastic, but you don't have a reputation for humorous wit around here, so I assume you're not.

Getting a beer dumped on your head, or "expecting violence" because one wears any sort of clothing to a punk show--or any genre of music--is just idiotic. That's something to complain about. That would never happen at a metal show, though metal fans are pretty congenial for the most part, unlike idiotic punk fans (on a side note, punk music sucks--repetitive, simplistic crap).

And the nazi-metaphor works, because there's a large pink scene that's associated with white supremacy--seeing swastikas wouldn't be uncommon. It is funny seeing someone get all offended by someone using the phrase "nazi-like" after telling someone they shouldn't have been offended from getting a beer poured on them.

[Basil]

And the nazi-metaphor works, because there's a large pink scene that's associated with white supremacy--.
That's surprising, you don't normally think of white supremacists as being huge fans of pastels.

[Desolation]

In truth, the amount of actual white supremacist Nazis within the punk scene is very, very small. When they do pop up, they're far more likely to be forcibly removed than someone wearing a suit or a yellow sundress. Even in the skinhead scene, which also tries to uphold an anti-racism platform, those types are seen as pariahs and not welcome. They do exist, though...And they're often a lot bigger, angrier, and meaner than everyone else.

Still, there is a very dictatorial rejection of outsiders (or, anyone who doesn't wear the uniform) among the hardcore punk extremists. And it is a big problem among the generally peaceful punks who don't think that civil disobedience equates to starting fires and beating up nerds. The Descendents even wrote a song about the phenomenon:
http://youtu.be/T9F4k8dZf00

To a certain extent, I blame it on Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious, who for all their talk about free-thinking and being yourself began the "You're either with us or against us" trend in punk. Fact is, no one deserves to be treated to violence or scorn for trying to enjoy a certain type of music without fitting into a narrow identity of what fans are supposed to be or look like. It's a shame to me that the scene has become so rigid, because I love and grew up with punk rock. It was supposed to be a refuge for misfits, not another set of arbitrary lifestyle rules.

[JuniperWoolf]

And your "nazi-like" comment is way over the top - ironic or otherwise - if you get beaten up and transported to a death camp you can start using that comparison. ( I've just read Ian Thomson's excellent biography of Primo Levi and I'm now hyper-sensitive to misuse of "nazi-like".)

They're called Nazi punks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MkRuV0aCcI), it's a thing. Anti-Flag wrote about them a few times too, like Davey Destroyed the Punk Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0u9mUbA1uE) and Punk by the Book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLuyljHdD8o). Everyone in the subculture knows at least a few of them. So I wasn't insulted or surprised, I knew what I was doing and of course I expected to be messed with.

[KCurtis]

They're called Nazi punks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MkRuV0aCcI), it's a thing. Anti-Flag wrote about them a few times too, like Davey Destroyed the Punk Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0u9mUbA1uE) and Punk by the Book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLuyljHdD8o). Everyone in the subculture knows at least a few of them. So I wasn't insulted or surprised, I knew what I was doing and of course I expected to be messed with.

The nazi punk fits. In the 80's, at least in the N.E. US that yellow sun dress would have been fine, and maybe a beehive hair do, since your hair is long- I think.

[Paulclem]

I knew punks in the 70s and 80s, and they were always self conscious. In fact it made their day if anyone looked at them. They used to gather in certain pubs to avoid the real hard nuts becaus they didn't really want to cause bother, but merely acted tough with the spitting and the boots and the spiky hair. (I had a mohican for one day. I just couldn't be bothered to do it).

They were as much poseurs as the arty punks that followed them and any of the other groups that hung around. The whole thing about individuality has always been a bit false. They would try ever so hard to be different from everyone else, but would cluster in groups like herds of animals gathered together for protection - all there looking similarly different. But then maybe we all do that.

[Anton Hermes]

"The next real literary “rebels” in this country might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels, born oglers who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles. Who treat of plain old untrendy human troubles and emotions in U.S. life with reverence and conviction. Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue. These anti-rebels would be outdated, of course, before they even started. Dead on the page. Too sincere. Clearly repressed. Backward, quaint, naive, anachronistic. Maybe that’ll be the point. Maybe that’s why they’ll be the next real rebels. Real rebels, as far as I can see, risk disapproval. The old postmodern insurgents risked the gasp and squeal: shock, disgust, outrage, censorship, accusations of socialism, anarchism, nihilism. Today’s risks are different. The new rebels might be artists willing to risk the yawn, the rolled eyes, the cool smile, the nudged ribs, the parody of gifted ironists, the “Oh how banal.” To risk accusations of sentimentality, melodrama. Of overcredulity. Of softness. Of willingness to be suckered by a world of lurkers and starers who fear gaze and ridicule above imprisonment without law. Who knows. "

Much as I love David Foster Wallace, this seems like wishful thinking from a stranded ironist. He knew more than anyone else how impossible it was to revert to a credulous, escapist artistic mindset. When writers (or composers) make a conscious effort to be old-fashioned and sentimental, the result is usually so bracketed and patronizing that it embodies the very cynicism it claims it's trying to get past.

Post-postmodernism is going to have to encompass all the things we've learned in literature since the original Modernists started shaking things up, not just pretend that nothing happened in the 20th century.

[tonywalt]

I may be wrong but in the distant future most novels will look like Infinite Jest. It is worth noting that most of the readers of the book are still 20 somethings even thought the book was published 15 years ago.

The people who will really like and get the book are not born yet.

[Anton Hermes]

I may be wrong but in the distant future most novels will look like Infinite Jest.
I doubt that. I don't think we have any reason to think meganovels like Infinite Jest will be any more common in the future (let alone comprise "most novels") than they are today.


It is worth noting that most of the readers of the book are still 20 somethings even thought the book was published 15 years ago.
Yeah, it's a hipster artifact, and twentysomethings are the ones who read them. Do you know a lot of grandmothers who read On The Road or Catcher in the Rye? Is it a big surprise that young students and the underemployed are the only readers with time to pore over this thousand-page novel?


The people who will really like and get the book are not born yet.
No, the novel was really a product of its time: pre-Internet saturation, pre-social media, when terrorism was still sort of a vague prospect. Are readers in the future going to relate to a vision of America where the biggest international threat is from Canada?

[tonywalt]

I doubt that. I don't think we have any reason to think meganovels like Infinite Jest will be any more common in the future (let alone comprise "most novels") than they are today.


Yeah, it's a hipster artifact, and twentysomethings are the ones who read them. Do you know a lot of grandmothers who read On The Road or Catcher in the Rye? Is it a big surprise that young students and the underemployed are the only readers with time to pore over this thousand-page novel?


No, the novel was really a product of its time: pre-Internet saturation, pre-social media, when terrorism was still sort of a vague prospect. Are readers in the future going to relate to a vision of America where the biggest international threat is from Canada?

I meant style, the topic could be anything. The length could be short, long, or medium.

[Anton Hermes]

I meant style, the topic could be anything. The length could be short, long, or medium.

Um, no, the length of Infinite Jest was part of its style. Didn't you read it?

[tonywalt]

Um, no, the length of Infinite Jest was part of its style. Did you read it?

Yea, I've read it a couple of times. His style is found from early days in Broom in the system and later Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Also, his well respected and as essays go - some of the funniest-"Shipping out" and "Ticket to the Fair".

DFW's style runs through all of his writing.

[Anton Hermes]

Yea, I've read it a couple of times.

Well now, of course you have.

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.

[Alexander III]

Much as I love David Foster Wallace, this seems like wishful thinking from a stranded ironist. He knew more than anyone else how impossible it was to revert to a credulous, escapist artistic mindset. When writers (or composers) make a conscious effort to be old-fashioned and sentimental, the result is usually so bracketed and patronizing that it embodies the very cynicism it claims it's trying to get past.

Post-postmodernism is going to have to encompass all the things we've learned in literature since the original Modernists started shaking things up, not just pretend that nothing happened in the 20th century.

To be fair literary history is not on your side when you make that statement. I think of neo-classism, with it's strong sense of artifice and condemnation of any human passion which was not satiric or Ironic. In fact all the great neo-classical poetry we have is mostly satirical in vein. A man at the end of neo-classism would have been fully justified in thinking the cat is out of the box and won't ever go back in. Thought, society and man has become so advanced that poetry can only serve to satirize. Then, boom, Romanticism. It sprouted, with the coming of the Napolionic wars it bloomed in such colors as baffle the mind, and by the time Victoria had grown fat, it stagnated, fell into cliche and academic rigidity, dead as a tree in winter, and just as ubiquitous. Then, suddenly these strange words came from Italy and Paris "Futurists" who spoke of the previous generation of crazy writers in paris who were called Symbolists, and suddenly and slowly; Modernism.

[Anton Hermes]

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?

[Alexander III]

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?

You are contrasting a caricature and arguing against that. How is that productive? Of course Modernism and post-modernism won't be forgotten, no one has come close to insinuating such a thing, you pulled that one out of thin air. To make a few relevant examples, Neo-classisim was extremely influential on romanticism, despite the latter being a rejection of the former the mere fact of constructing a movement based on rejecting a prior one by default means that the two will be heavily intermingled.

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.

[Anton Hermes]

You are contrasting a caricature and arguing against that. How is that productive?
Well, Wallace did the same thing in the quote in the OP, concocting a literary bogeyman made up of cold, hyper-ironic hipster no-talents who resent anything that smacks of emotion or sentiment. I certainly don't see anything academic or unemotional in the best modern & postmodern literature I've read. The best example I can think of is Beckett: his work may be eccentric and unheroic, but there's humor, humanity, and pathos aplenty.

[Alexander III]

Well, Wallace did the same thing in the quote in the OP, concocting a literary bogeyman made up of cold, hyper-ironic hipster no-talents who resent anything that smacks of emotion or sentiment. I certainly don't see anything academic or unemotional in the best modern & postmodern literature I've read. The best example I can think of is Beckett: his work may be eccentric and unheroic, but there's humor, humanity, and pathos aplenty.

Who would deny that swift or pope lacked humanity? There is emotion is post-modernism, but it lacks sentiment and sincerity. Besides the "hyper-ironic hipster no-talents who resent anything that smacks of emotion or sentiment" is quite real and existent. Albeit more in the visual art world than the literary one, but it is a creature which is hardly fictive.

[Anton Hermes]

There is emotion is post-modernism, but it lacks sentiment and sincerity.
That's a preposterous overstatement. So there's no work of Romantic art that was sopping wet with insincere sentiment?

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.

[Alexander III]

That's a preposterous overstatement. So there's no work of Romantic art that was sopping wet with insincere sentiment?

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.

You are getting too detail orientated, of course I am making generalizations, the mere fact that I am talking about "romanticism" or "modernism" implies generalization. But one the whole, would you seriously describe post-modernism as valuing sentimentality, would sentimentality be a core value? When I say it lacks sentimentality, I mean sentimentality is not a core principle it is viewed negatively - much like in romanticism sentimentality was in may ways a core principle.

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.

[Anton Hermes]

You are getting too detail orientated

Fair enough. I just get a little weary when these discussions end up being generalization tug-o-wars, when people should cite actual books, poems, or authors to bolster their case. So if you're going to keep arguing over vague terms like sentimentality instead of talking about literary works or writers, I'm done.