Discuss literary movements

[JBI]

Really though, Realism isn't a movement in the sense that it never really died out, and can't really be limited to a few authors. Realism, or its conventions anyway, are the basis of all Quebec fiction up until the last 30 or so years. Realism generally was the mode in English Canada up until 1960 or so, and it was believed until recently that modernist novels simply weren't written in Canada (which but a couple of years ago was found false, with the unearthing of some unpublished manuscripts in various archives around the country).


As for the necessity of these groups for literary studies, I disagree with that. Only a few groups are really mentioned, and those are chronological more than stylistic. Wordsworth and Keats are grouped together despite their differences, because they are reacting to similar political events, and worlds. That is interesting grouping, but grouping by "movement" for much else is rather pointless, and often closes people off.

[toology514]

Metafiction: Post-modernist school of writing in which the writing is self-conscious and self-referential. The text draws attention to the fact that it is merely a piece of writing and addresses the relationship between fiction and reality.It is characterized by alinear narratives, unorthodox structure, and relies heavily on the anticipation of readers' reactions to the writing.
Some metafictionalists include John Barth, Italo Calvino, Robert Coover, and David Foster Wallace.

[JBI]

Metafiction: Post-modernist school of writing in which the writing is self-conscious and self-referential. The text draws attention to the fact that it is merely a piece of writing and addresses the relationship between fiction and reality.It is characterized by alinear narratives, unorthodox structure, and relies heavily on the anticipation of readers' reactions to the writing.
Some metafictionalists include John Barth, Italo Calvino, Robert Coover, and David Foster Wallace.

True to an extent, but what about, for instance, Don Quixote, Gargantua and Pantagruel, and Tristam Shandy, which all, to an extent, are metafictions. I am reluctant to, also, recognize that as a movement, since it is more a technique than anything else.

The historiographic metafiction is most certainly a post-modern concept, but I would call the "movement" if such a thing exists, post-modernism, and not metaficiton.

[Mopey Droney]

Isn't there a distinction between those like Thomas Pynchon and Donald Barthelme who were pure postmodernists both formally and in subject matter, versus someone like David Foster Wallace who used postmodern formal elements but whose subjects were more traditional rather than focusing on entropy and wordplay and cynicism as an end to itself?

[Jeremiah Jazzz]

The Absurdist

A genre of fiction, drama or poetry that centers on the behavior of absurd characters, situations or subjects. While a great deal of absurdist fiction is humorous in nature, the hallmark of the genre is not humor, but rather the study of human behavior under circumstances that are highly unusual. Absurdist fiction posits little judgement about characters or their actions; that task is left to the reader.

Unlike many other forms of literature, absurdist works will not necessarily have a traditional plot structure (ie rising action, climax, falling action). Similarly, the "moral" of the story is generally not explicit, and the characters are often ambiguous in nature.

Due to its non-conformist nature, many readers struggle with Absurdism when they are first exposed to it. Indeed, it would be accurate to describe absurdism and absurdist fiction as an "acquired taste." Conversely, this genre is a favorite among scholars because it lends itself so well to interpretation, discussion, and debate.

Absurdism grew out of the modernist literature of the late 19th and early 20th century as a direct opposition to the Victorian literature which was prominent just prior to this period.

Notable Authors: Albert Camus, Samuel Beckett

Maybe add Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi play up?

[toology514]

True to an extent, but what about, for instance, Don Quixote, Gargantua and Pantagruel, and Tristam Shandy, which all, to an extent, are metafictions. I am reluctant to, also, recognize that as a movement, since it is more a technique than anything else.

The historiographic metafiction is most certainly a post-modern concept, but I would call the "movement" if such a thing exists, post-modernism, and not metaficiton.

the key phrase being "to an extent." Cervantes, Rabelais, and Stern all employed metafictional techniques, but i would not consider their works metafiction per se. I believe it was most certainly a movement-- a countermovement, a rebellion against romanticism and realism in a traditional sense.

[JBI]

I meant by to an extent to specify the fact that their cultures read the books differently, not that they don't employ the same devices. As it is, Don Quixote is far more metaficticious than most contemporary metafictions. The difference is in the original readership, who read less, and, I would argue, were more easily detached from their realities.

In truth though, most historical novels, or old novels, to an extent contain reader-metaficticious elements, being that the reader removes herself from their setting, and into the authors, knowingly. The act blurs things in the sense that the subject is so foreign as to require a willful and acknowledged movement from reality.

[toology514]

In truth though, most historical novels, or old novels, to an extent contain reader-metaficticious elements, being that the reader removes herself from their setting, and into the authors, knowingly.

This i must disagree with. one of the major tenets of metafiction is the rejection of causing the reader suspension of disbelief. Readers are not meant to remove themselves from their own settings and place themselves into that which the author is creating, even knowingly. I find this to be a distinguishing factor between say Don Quijote and modern metafiction, for example, Calvino's writing-- the subject matter is not foreign in the slightest, it is simply the re-exploration of <u> our</u> reality. There are reminders built into the text that will dissuade us as readers from suspending our disbelief, but instead toy with the idea of an alternate, often impossible take on what we consider to be real.

[Eponymous]

Hi, I'm doing some research on recent (as in last two decades) influential works in the field of satirizing science and technology in society and the moral issues provoked by such works. Can anyone name some of the major works that would fall into such a category? Margaret Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' is already on my list but I'm having trouble finding a comprehensive list of the major works in this field. Thought this might help the list you all are contributing to as well.

Cheers

[dfloyd]

but reading it is about as far As I want to go with it. Sometimes I consider myself luchy that I have never taken a course in literature. I can just read all the books without categorizing them or their authors. The important thing is to read literatue, and not get too involved in reading about literature. What is that old saying about Pedagogues? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[JBI]

This i must disagree with. one of the major tenets of metafiction is the rejection of causing the reader suspension of disbelief. Readers are not meant to remove themselves from their own settings and place themselves into that which the author is creating, even knowingly. I find this to be a distinguishing factor between say Don Quijote and modern metafiction, for example, Calvino's writing-- the subject matter is not foreign in the slightest, it is simply the re-exploration of <u> our</u> reality. There are reminders built into the text that will dissuade us as readers from suspending our disbelief, but instead toy with the idea of an alternate, often impossible take on what we consider to be real.

I disagree - the metaficticious narrator really just creates a new diagesis outside of the content of the book, and the reader's reality. Me reading Pynchon is not me, from Pynchon's narrator's perspective reading the book - it is me removing myself to the narrator's perspective, and overseeing the content of the book - there is still a removal. The book isn't engaged with one removal, but really two.

[Neha Khan]

wow, its great to see all the literary movements listed here. Thanks wordsworth for doing us the favor. I am studying a few of them nowadays including existentialism, though have a few reservations to it but would like to discuss it with you guys!!

I agree with JBI-modern metafiction indeed leads to a willing suspention of disbelief. But I find it quite strange that the very notion of self-consciousness has been inconsistent in most of the postmodern literary theories.
If metafiction is something between fiction and criticism then there comes a point of convergence between the two where both fiction and criticism embrace each others' insights, generating a kind of self consciousness at both ends. Criticism affirms the literariness of fiction and creates critical insights within fiction, while fiction incorporates in itself a critical perspective along with a self awareness and consciousness of the artificiality of its content and constructions. Thereby if metafiction is about self knowledge and self-distance does it not at any instance become essential for metafiction to be conscious of its being METAFICTION?

[apothecary]

Wordsworth and Keats are grouped together despite their differences, because they are reacting to similar political events, and worlds. That is interesting grouping, but grouping by "movement" for much else is rather pointless, and often closes people off.

What do you think of the recent trend to use the phrase "The Romantic Period" more as a historical marker, for that window between the Enlightenment and revolution, and the early Victorian age of empire and industry, while "Romanticism" stands in for the 'spirit of the age' - valorisation of genius, endeavour, progress, experiment and critical debate often shared by writers that were at odds ideologically and politically- that is more of a cultural movement than a specifically literary one; ie. Romanticism in science?

I think we have to redefine "Romantic", bearing in mind it is an anachronistic term and our understanding of the canon is skewed by Victorian prejudices. Even a couple of years ago as an undergrad I was only taught the six male poets, whereas now we are rediscovering women writers, journalists and playwrights, etc, and so our understanding of "Romantic" writers surely has to change?

[BienvenuJDC]

I think we have to redefine "Romantic", bearing in mind it is an anachronistic term and our understanding of the canon is skewed by Victorian prejudices. Even a couple of years ago as an undergrad I was only taught the six male poets, whereas now we are rediscovering women writers, journalists and playwrights, etc, and so our understanding of "Romantic" writers surely has to change?

I couldn't agree more. {saying in jest} But doesn't it mean gushy and mushy, lovey and dovey? (<---hyperbole)

[Babak Movahed]

Dostoevsky surely must be added to notables; if not the best author of realism.

Alright I don't mean to offend, but to a degree can't Dostoevsky be considered as the first modernist? His works incorporate a lot of Modernist stylistic variations for example his quasi-omniscent third person narration in Crime and Punishment. Also when you analyze other realist authors you notice a difference in their styles comparatively to Dostoevsky. Look I understand that I might get a lot of opposition for this statement but to all you adamant skeptics read "Dream of a Ridiculous Man" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

By the way very well done list.