Can I get a proper, legitimate, genuine rundown on post-modernism? I feel like I don't understand it at all because there's so much insanity, absurdism and vitriol around the concept
>>24976835Post-modern literature/art ≠ post-modern philosophy. They are related e.g., "muh irony because I will not accept le meta narrative..." (which is a meta-narrative)—but also different.The label post-modern is unhelpfully applied to critical theory too, which is different. They're all hypernominalist, see freedom as maximizing potency, and involved in deep performative contradictions that might be accused of sophistry. The original critical theorists were actually quite aware of this sort of problem, particularly late in life, but given their presuppositions they couldn't fix it. The more traditionally "post-modern" thinkers tend to get a worse wrap because of their shit tier historical scholarship that was then repeated on authority (ironically) as immutable truth. This starts with their father Nietzsche, who basically just makes shit up like he's doing creative writing.
>>24976835the word can mean a thousand different things. i don't think you'll find a better summary than this very influential 40-page Fredric Jameson essay: web.education.wisc.edu/halverson/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2012/12/jameson.pdf
>>24976835https://youtu.be/Ve3WBgCy7hc
>>24976835
>>24976855Why is Bob-Omb Battlefield there
>>24976835Post-Modernism literally means "after Modernism". And Modernism is the usual name for the period of about 1890 to 1930, which was named so because modern literally means "contemporary" or "nowadays". So, the time from 1930 to probably 2030 we call "after these days". Any theory that cramps these hundred years of art and theory into one thing is peak bullshit. Hope that helps.
>>24976835It's when authors replace craft and talent with epic hyperironic funny memes. So weird and quirky lol lmao!
Here's a few loose quotes I find potent. Also read Jameson of course.>Eco: I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows that he cannot say to her "I love you madly", because he knows that she knows (and that she knows he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still there is a solution. He can say "As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly". At this point, having avoided false innocence, having said clearly it is no longer possible to talk innocently, he will nevertheless say what he wanted to say to the woman: that he loves her in an age of lost innocence.>Pynchon: “Too late” was never in their programming. They find instead a moment’s suspending of their sanity—but then it’s over with, whew, and it’s back to the trail, back to the Daily Planet. "Yes Jimmy, it must’ve been the day I ran into that singularity, those few seconds of absolute mystery… you know Jimmy, time—time is a funny thing…" There’ll be a thousand ways to forget. The heroes will go on, kicked upstairs to oversee the development of bright new middle-line personnel, and they will watch their system falling apart, watch those singularities begin to come more and more often, proclaiming another dispensation out of the tissue of old-fashioned time, and they’ll call it cancer, and just won’t know what things are coming to, or what’s the meaning of it all, Jimmy…>DeLillo: Everything is concealed in symbolism, hidden by veils of mystery and layers of cultural material. But it is psychic data, absolutely. The large doors slide open, they close unbidden. Energy waves, incident radiation. All the letters and numbers are here, all the colors of the spectrum, all the voices and sounds, all the code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering, rearranging, peeling off the layers of unspeakability. Not that we would want to, not that any useful purpose would be served. This is not Tibet. Even Tibet is not Tibet anymore.>Beckett: I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent.
>>24976893....what
>>24976835Postmodernism is an extension of Modernism. They use the same literary techniques: stream-of-consciousness, nonlinearity, pastiche etc.The difference between the two is very nebulous to me. They say postmodernism is more whacky, but Ulysses is whackier than the vast majority of postmodernists. They say it fucks with the narrator, but Ulysses did that too. They say it mixes high and low, but guess what? Ulysses already did that.
>>24976857>he doesn't know
>>24976900Cervantes already did all of it. Nothing new under the sun.
>>24976907Cervantes, Sterne, Joyce. However, over time their works have become respected, established items, even if most readers maintain a safe distance. Put simply, writing Ulysses now cannot mean the same thing as writing it a hundred years ago. It's old avant-garde. As always, new forms need to be found.
>>24976835Postmodern literature is the literature that was the final nail in the coffin of the single dominant school of criticism and theory. The books in your pic are not really postmodern, they are all from after the idea of the single dominant school was dead and writers were free write outside the bounds of what was prescribed by academia. While these books are often called postmodernist, calling them that reduces all literature from the postmodernist on to postmodernist and makes the term meaningless (which it kind of is).
In Gravity's Rainbow Slothrop literally disintegrates into nothing
>>24976909I always see screaming faces instead of shoes.
>>24976959It's even worse for me. I see basedjaks screaming
