Postmodernism

[baytar]

Hello everyone, i want to ask you that how can i understand whether i understood postmodernism or not? I have a class named Modern English Novels and i didn't take it first term when modernism was the subject. But this term we are responsible for postmodernism and a book called "Sexing the Cherry". I am trying to understand the characteristics but having troubles when it comes to analyse them on the book. I feel miserable, i don't want to fail and willing to listen your advices?

[Pike Bishop]

In brief, Postmodern literature is that segment of Modernist literature that particularly resists structural and/or narrative closure, denies inherent stability to most of its characters, and tends to privilege ontological investigations and themes over epistemological ones, since ontology is considered inherently unstable. Postmodern literature can also be marked by an internal playfulness treating usually revered themes and aspects of literature with an aesthetic, deconstructive attitude and stylistic approach.

That being said, every novel, Postmodern or not, needs to be read on its own terms, not on those of its presumed aesthetic genre. No Postmodern novel is exactly like the other. I have never read the novel you read, but I suggest you read it as you have every other novel, with the awareness the aesthetic tendencies I mentioned will likely be in play.

[YesNo]

Hello everyone, i want to ask you that how can i understand whether i understood postmodernism or not? I have a class named Modern English Novels and i didn't take it first term when modernism was the subject. But this term we are responsible for postmodernism and a book called "Sexing the Cherry". I am trying to understand the characteristics but having troubles when it comes to analyse them on the book. I feel miserable, i don't want to fail and willing to listen your advices?

What characteristics are you trying to understand? Just clarifying what they are may help.

[kev67]

I have often wondered what postmodern means. Commentators on late night arts review programmes used to use the word a lot. I even looked it up on the internet. There was a pages of description and I was left none the wiser. Someone told me it meant ironic, but I am not sure it does. It is a term sometimes used in social science, but many social scientists do not like the term.

[kiki1982]

Maybe because it's a name for a heterogenous amalgamation of things? As far as I can see it is, but this is not my particular field...

Years and years after Lost in Austen, I'm still pondering why that repeat of Darcy's wet-shirt scene was a 'weird postmodern moment'. I've tried to work it out, because I think it's the key to everything, but my ponderings have not yielded a satisfactory result. Anyone explain?

[Pike Bishop]

,j
I have often wondered what postmodern means. Commentators on late night arts review programmes used to use the word a lot. I even looked it up on the internet. There was a pages of description and I was left none the wiser. Someone told me it meant ironic, but I am not sure it does. It is a term sometimes used in social science, but many social scientists do not like the term.
I explained what it entailed in literature in my post above. As to the social sciences, it usually refers to poststructuralist philosophy, which rejects foundationalist truth statements. It can also refer to value systems particular to the digital/information age.

[kev67]

,j
I explained what it entailed in literature in my post above. As to the social sciences, it usually refers to poststructuralist philosophy, which rejects foundationalist truth statements. It can also refer to value systems particular to the digital/information age.

The term seems not to have a very precise definition. Your definition of it regarding literature reminded me of Umberto Eco's Island of the Day Before, which I found very, very annoying. I cannot think of anything else that fits the description. Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5.

I suppose Modernism refers to the time when everyone thought that science would explain everything, including human belief and behaviour. When thinkers and writers lost confidence that it could, Post-Modernism was the next stage. Hence the wryness, the shoulder-shrugging, the dubiousness when anyone attempts to assert a fact.

[ennison]

There are elements of postmodernism stretching back to Tristram Shandy. One thing the postmodernists are not terribly concerned with is the transparency of traditional prose. Indeed it aspires in their hands to some of the "in-yer-face" qualities of poetry. Another aspect is the lack of concern for the "suspension of disbelief" aspect of the "traditional" storyteller. Quite frequently you are being reminded Hey this is fiction and it's fun! I wouldn't care to set about a definition. It's probably better to just look at the texts that fall under that heading

[Pike Bishop]

The term seems not to have a very precise definition. Your definition of it regarding literature reminded me of Umberto Eco's Island of the Day Before, which I found very, very annoying. I cannot think of anything else that fits the description. Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5.

I suppose Modernism refers to the time when everyone thought that science would explain everything, including human belief and behaviour. When thinkers and writers lost confidence that it could, Post-Modernism was the next stage. Hence the wryness, the shoulder-shrugging, the dubiousness when anyone attempts to assert a fact.

It depends on how you define "precise definition." If you mean an exact definition fully explaining the term, then it doesn't. However, neither does Medieval, Modernist, Renaissance, Expressionist, Surrealist, Realist, or Naturalist. So, if you are being that rigorous, then we have to throw away all literary definitions. But, if we take "precise" to mean its scholars and adherents have a very functional idea of what it is, then there is a precise definition.

I provided this workable definition earlier in the thread. For some reason, you ignored it and failed to address it:

"In brief, Postmodern literature is that segment of Modernist literature that particularly resists structural and/or narrative closure, denies inherent stability to most of its characters, and tends to privilege ontological investigations and themes over epistemological ones, since ontology is considered inherently unstable. Postmodern literature can also be marked by an internal playfulness treating usually revered themes and aspects of literature with an aesthetic, deconstructive attitude and stylistic approach."

If you want to read actual studies of Postmodern literature with in-depth analysis and definition of aesthetics. You should check out The Poetics of Postmodernism by Linda Hutcheon and Postmodernist Fiction by Brian McHale. They are both excellent.

As to your definitions of Modernist and Postmodern literature, they are both too narrow and inaccurate. Where exactly did you get them from? Modernist literature is much more than literature "referring to the time when everyone thought that science would explain everything, including human belief and behaviour." In fact, Modernist literature, being influenced by Freud and Marx, was extremely skeptical of the scientific world T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland is a perfect example of that. Also, Modernist literature is much more about a non-humanist, non-linear, Bakhtinian aesthetic as it is about any views of science or the Modern world.

And Postmodernism certainly isn't just the "next stage" marked by a lost faith in science. Firstly, as Jean-Francois Lyotard correctly pointed out, post-modernism is more of an aesthetic pre-modernism, since it is even more resistant to closed structures, stable characters, and narrative forms. Also, much of post-modernism, from J.G. Ballard to William Gibson, embraces technology. So, I would check out those books if I were you. Just because you're not sure Postmodernism is doesn't mean it's not a legitimate well-defined genre, and it is.

[Pike Bishop]

Look below

[Pike Bishop]

There are elements of postmodernism stretching back to Tristram Shandy. One thing the postmodernists are not terribly concerned with is the transparency of traditional prose. Indeed it aspires in their hands to some of the "in-yer-face" qualities of poetry. Another aspect is the lack of concern for the "suspension of disbelief" aspect of the "traditional" storyteller. Quite frequently you are being reminded Hey this is fiction and it's fun! I wouldn't care to set about a definition. It's probably better to just look at the texts that fall under that heading

Ennison is right about Tristram Shandy being an aesthetically post-modern text. He is also correct that playfulness is often a significant aspect of some Postmodern texts, such as Snow Crash, The Crying of Lot 49, White Noise, and New York Trilogy. However, not all post-modern texts are playful as much as they are deconstructive and exploratory, as many Postmodern novels address their serious subject matter and themes with the seriousness they merit. Such texts are:

Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy
The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson
The Violent Bear it Away by Flannery O'Connor
The Messiah of Stockholm (some humor) by Cynthia Ozick
Crash by J.G. Ballard
The Names by Don DeLillo

[ennison]

I tried Crash when I was young and sensitive but I felt my gorge rising so frequently that I had to give it up as the product of a seriously disturbed mind. I was disappointed because I had enjoyed many other Ballard works. However having worked hard to become seriously disturbed myself I think I could probably handle it now. Oh I agree many post-modernist texts are seriously serious.

[Pike Bishop]

Yes, if there were such a thing as a "date novel;" it certainly wouldn't be Crash. Of course, Cronenberg's brilliant film adaptation of it was hardly a date movie either. It was one of my old graduate school girlfriend's favorite films. Why I didn't see that as a clear sign of trouble is beyond me...;)

[kev67]

And Postmodernism certainly isn't just the "next stage" marked by a lost faith in science. Firstly, as Jean-Francois Lyotard correctly pointed out, post-modernism is more of an aesthetic pre-modernism, since it is even more resistant to closed structures, stable characters, and narrative forms. Also, much of post-modernism, from J.G. Ballard to William Gibson, embraces technology. So, I would check out those books if I were you. Just because you're not sure Postmodernism is doesn't mean it's not a legitimate well-defined genre, and it is.

I have read William Gibson's book Neuromancer. It was certainly a very confusing book. It reminded me of films like Bladerunner, Tron and The Matrix. I was often not clear whether the main protagonist was in the real world, experiencing the real world via someone else's senses, or in a digitally created, virtual world. The characters could be real or virtual. If the characters were in the real world that tended to restrict them to being alive (at least to begin with). If they were in a virtual world, they may be alive, dead, or merely a computer construct. Apart from the woman who spoke like Lady Penelope and the Rastafarians in Space, they mostly sounded alike, so it was difficult to tell who was doing what to who. I would have needed to take notes to follow it properly. I read it concurrently with Great Expectations and the contrast could not have been more jarring. IMO it would have worked better as a graphic novel. Still, despite all the context switching, the story still had a beginning, middle and end; so I am a bit surprised to discover it is an example of Postmodernism. If Neuromancer is Postmodern, then so is the film Tron.

[Pike Bishop]

I have read William Gibson's book Neuromancer. It was certainly a very confusing book. It reminded me of films like Bladerunner, Tron and The Matrix. I was often not clear whether the main protagonist was in the real world, experiencing the real world via someone else's senses, or in a digitally created, virtual world. The characters could be real or virtual. If the characters were in the real world that tended to restrict them to being alive (at least to begin with). If they were in a virtual world, they may be alive, dead, or merely a computer construct. Apart from the woman who spoke like Lady Penelope and the Rastafarians in Space, they mostly sounded alike, so it was difficult to tell who was doing what to who. I would have needed to take notes to follow it properly. I read it concurrently with Great Expectations and the contrast could not have been more jarring. IMO it would have worked better as a graphic novel. Still, despite all the context switching, the story still had a beginning, middle and end; so I am a bit surprised to discover it is an example of Postmodernism. If Neuromancer is Postmodern, then so is the film Tron.

Firstly, your finding Neuromancer confusing doesn't make it so; it just says you found it confusing. It's the equivalent of someone finding Bach's Brandenburgs over-complicated or Van Gogh's paintings excessively blurry; the perceiver isn't the sole determinant of phenomenological truth. Case was physically real, as was the A.I. Wintermute; they just both had their own abilities to both occupy netspace and the physical world. The blurring between the two world's was part of the novel's aesthetic and socio-political themes.

And your declaring Tron postmodern because of one structural similarity to Neuromancer is incorrect and syllogistically flawed. Many non-postmodern texts and postmodern texts have beginnings, middles, and ends; that doesn't make all non-postmodern texts postmodern. That's the equivalent of saying both the Modernist novel Mrs. Dalloway and the romantic comedy Something Borrowed having women thinking about their old flames makes Something Borrowed Moddernist; it's far from it. Ironically, Tron did influence Cyberpunk literature, of which Neuromancer is a member. However, Tron is still a realist sci-fi text with predominantly clear boundaries of reality and human existence. Neuromancer is a Postmodern sci-fi text without them.

[Hacienda]

Baytar: I originally set out to perhaps gloss Pike Bishop's initial reply for an easier read - with no assertion of my authority beyond my own understanding.

However, on reflection, I found couldn't - there is only a finite amount of reduction possible before one dilutes or misdirects. I know there is a lot of jargon and it might seem like academic cant, but each word is used with purpose and not in service of obfuscation. Though the definition of postmoderism isn't a matter of fixed dogmatic doctrine, they have given an excellent definition. If you have any difficulty understanding it, though you may not, I encourage you unpack each clause in turn; for the purposes of one course, understanding those two brief paragraphs will ultimately serve you better than reading an OUP 'Very Short Introduction' style book or a weaker summary in a literature dictionary.

Best of luck with the wild world of literary theory.

[Pike Bishop]

There was no "jargon" or "academic cant" in my two paragraphs, although I'd gladly read your opinions on why there was. "Epistemology," "ontology," and "structural" are well-known philosophical and/or aesthetic terms any college-educated person should know. I appreciate your kind words about the paragraphs, but inaccurate references to challenging words as jargon dumbs down our expectations of what readers should know or be able to look up.

[Hacienda]

In this instance, I use jargon to mean a vocabulary commonly associated with a particular context or profession, without any prejudice regarding clarity or complexity. For example, what we might call affray in the jargon of an English common law court we might elsewhere call a punch in the face - one is not a gloss or reduction of the other, nor do they constitute an occlusion of meaning: a punch might also be common assault for instance, and not all instances of affray are punches in the face. I am aware that jargon may be used negatively, but that connotation is not automatic.

Though ancillary, I would also contend that jargon is not a fixed delineation but a relative term - to a group of lawyers, the term habeas corpus is just a basic principle, but meaningless to the common criminal defendant. However, a term like as a 'two-step act of probabilism' would be a form of jargon associated with patent law and perhaps not fully intelligible to the common barrister or solicitor.

Further, I specifically disavowed the possible identification of your brief summary as 'academic cant', thought it 'might seem' as such: here I was anticipating a possible response on the part of the original poster; however, I contended that 'each word is used with purpose and not in service of obfuscation', which is squarely contrary to the common usage meaning of 'cant'.

Based on the context of the question, I presumed the questioner is a non-specialist in literature and very probably studying a generalist degree (meaning the common undergraduate degree taken in systems such as the United States). I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion regarding reader agency and responsibility, and would broach neither conciliation nor compromise with a peer. However, towards a novitiate in the formal study of literature and theory, I feel a certain amount of generosity can be afforded in service of cultivating interest (and future specialists); we may or may not disagree on that point but I would say that is a polite disagreement over pedagogical approach rather than one clearly superior method trouncing an inferior one.

I reiterate again my admiration for the pithiness of your summary.

Allow me to add something you already know that isn't a reply to your remarks per se, but rather a comradely gripe: I know plenty of people with college degrees from all levels, from reputable universities (Oxon, Cantab, Big Ivy, Little Ivy) who studied liberal arts subjects and couldn't define those words, though, as you say - they really should be able to.

[Pike Bishop]

Thank you for the explanation. I guess I would counter that "epistemology" and "ontology"--as opposed, perhaps, to "deconstruction" or "postmodernism"--are philosophical terms not particularly germane to literary study. The fact the two simply mean "pertaining to knowledge/study of knowledge" and "pertaining to being/study of being" makes me disappointed those with college degrees and a presumed philosophy course never acquainted themselves with such terms. However, I gave up being surprised at the poor level of liberal arts education of American college graduates years ago.

Anyway, thanks again for your explanation and kind words, and I look forward to our future discussion.

[ennison]

Anyway back to Post... Did Mr Hawkes writing The Cannibal say (to himself as us Teuchtars do) "I am writing a post-modernist text"? No. So what about that is post-modernist (and his later work too)

[Pike Bishop]

Very few authors if any say "I am writing a 'whatever genre'" text; that doesn't mean they didn't write in that genre or style. Chaucer didn't call himself a Medievalist as he wrote The Canterbury Tales; Herman Melville didn't call himself a Modernist when he wrote Moby Dick; and John Keats didn't refer to himself as a Romanticist when he wrote "Ode to a Nightingale." What the author or artist says is irrelevant on the matter...Kurt Cobain hated the term "Grunge." It is we as scholars and appreciators of the literature who use these terms to better understand author's works and relate them to similar ones.

I only read The Lime Twig, so I can't comment on the rest of Hawkes' works. What makes that novel postmodern is the way the third person narratives are infused by the dreams and fantasies of its two main characters, which undercuts the legitimacy of the narrative and the "truth" of the events, even within its familiar crime novel story. So, as I mentioned in my description of Postmodern literature, ontology becomes as much an issue of question as epistemology, whereas epistemology usually dominates the Modernist text.

[ennison]

I appreciate your intelligent contributions here PB but listen I am a reader not a scholar. Words like ontological and epistemological do not drip like honeycomb from my lips ( despite their thick liquorocity)but I know what I like. I like Hawkes but he is not a novelist. He is something other. He, of course has been slotted into an intellectual space by scholars. I like your second paragraph above but your first goes over my head.

[ennison]

Ok I've read it a third time. It's clear now. Yes. I agree.

[Pike Bishop]

Cool. As to Hawkes, who is admittedly difficult, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I can say The Lime Twig is both one of the most imaginative crime novels and one of the best uses of non-lucid reflection I have read. You should give Auster's New York Trilogy a try; it is just as experimental as The Lime Twig, but far more cogent.

[WolfLarsen]

In brief, Postmodern literature is that segment of Modernist literature that particularly resists structural and/or narrative closure, denies inherent stability to most of its characters, and tends to privilege ontological investigations and themes over epistemological ones, since ontology is considered inherently unstable. Postmodern literature can also be marked by an internal playfulness treating usually revered themes and aspects of literature with an aesthetic, deconstructive attitude and stylistic approach.

That being said, every novel, Postmodern or not, needs to be read on its own terms, not on those of its presumed aesthetic genre. No Postmodern novel is exactly like the other. I have never read the novel you read, but I suggest you read it as you have every other novel, with the awareness the aesthetic tendencies I mentioned will likely be in play.

Jesus Christ! I wish I was this smart!

WARNING THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH HAS SOME SEXUAL IMAGERY. Puritans do not read this please.



I can do this. Everything this Pike Bishop guys talking about there I can do it. I just do it, but I don't know how to explain it. I think what I do is I **** English literature up the ***. You can call it postmodern literature, but I'm just having anal sex with the page. The pen is my phallus. To me that is what postmodern literature is. At least that's what I do to literature. But in 1 million years I could never explain it so intelligently as that Pike Bishop just did.

[Pike Bishop]

Thanks, Wolf...and your post actually shows a solid grasp of Postmodernism in its play with style and content.

[Mien]

It indeed has, but does not inherently show the reason why it is profound in the nature of literature....Like a joke, what is this ****! a tragedy towards the all postmodernist efforts already presumed in carrying the entitlement with pride. Does this Larsen man know a compass of sane, or to rather say that his sane, but sane isn't part but the petty he has for sane. Since the situation has flew differently from what I expected and gradually tinkered with my opinions. Do I really need to evaluate and condense my flavour of words with such exaggerated style? Oh my, this is a humanistic behaviour I creed with literature. Time to do something odd.