Speaking of punctuation
Simon R. Hughes
"People did not like. Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins did not like
people; and neither was sorry."
_Pictures from an Institution_ by Randall Jarrell
It's probably more postmodernist bullshit, done on purpose, a
parody of formal punctuation, and all that.
I can never enjoy a book whose punctuation pointlessly jumps up
and smacks me round the chops.
--
Simon R. Hughes
(Not mentioning the "Mrs.[sic] Robbins [...] people [...]
neither".)
Donna Richoux
> This from a book I will never buy:
>
> "People did not like. Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins did not like
> people; and neither was sorry."
>
> _Pictures from an Institution_ by Randall Jarrell
>
> It's probably more postmodernist bullshit, done on purpose, a
> parody of formal punctuation, and all that.
>
> I can never enjoy a book whose punctuation pointlessly jumps up
> and smacks me round the chops.
Randall Jarrell knew how to punctuate. It is more charitable to assume
you are looking at a typographical error. Or a bit of food stuck on the
page?
Since Jarrell died in 1965, "postmodernist" would be pushing it a
little.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
>> This from a book I will never buy:
>>
>> "People did not like. Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins did not like
>> people; and neither was sorry."
>>
>> _Pictures from an Institution_ by Randall Jarrell
>>
>> It's probably more postmodernist bullshit, done on purpose, a
>> parody of formal punctuation, and all that.
>>
>> I can never enjoy a book whose punctuation pointlessly jumps up
>> and smacks me round the chops.
>
> Randall Jarrell knew how to punctuate. It is more charitable to assume
> you are looking at a typographical error. Or a bit of food stuck on the
> page?
It was quoted by someone else. I'll blame her, if you insist.
> Since Jarrell died in 1965, "postmodernist" would be pushing it a
> little.
There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a
postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes,
yes, and yes, given certain definitions of "postmodernism".
--
Simon R. Hughes
Opus the Penguin
Nope, nope, and nope. They were all modern if they were anything of
that sort, especially the first two.
> given certain definitions of "postmodernism".
Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer."
I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in _Postscript to The
Name of the Rose_ is the best. Under that definition, _The Simpsons_
practically defines postmodernism.
If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Simon R. Hughes
> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>
>> There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a
>> postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes,
>> yes, and yes,
>
> Nope, nope, and nope.
Which one of the four do you concede?
> They were all modern if they were anything of
> that sort, especially the first two.
Nabokov a modernist? Pastiche, collage, mongrelled genres,
interpretive play, resistance to definition, decadence... the
list goes on and on. Nabokov was one of the finest
postmodernists.
>> given certain definitions of "postmodernism".
>
> Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer."
>
> I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in _Postscript to The
> Name of the Rose_ is the best. Under that definition, _The Simpsons_
> practically defines postmodernism.
>
> If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.
I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember
disagreeing with him, though.
The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to Virginia
Woolf. She said that "human character changed" "on or about
December 1910". Modernism was born, she claimed.
In 1977, Charles Jencks responded, claiming that modernism ended
on 15th July 1972, at 3:32 pm. It was then that Minouru
Yamasaki's Pruitt-Igoe housing project was demolished.
I don't agree with Jencks (who was probably only messing around).
If literary postmodernism is a list of textual features, then
there is a good case for Homer, a better one for Sterne, and a
water-tight one for the later Joyce.
--
Simon R. Hughes
Opus the Penguin
> Thus spake Opus the Penguin:
>
>> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>>
>>> There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a
>>> postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes,
>>> yes, and yes,
>>
>> Nope, nope, and nope.
>
> Which one of the four do you concede?
Oops. Didn't see that Nabokov up front. I don't know Nabokov enough to
comment.
>> They were all modern if they were anything of
>> that sort, especially the first two.
>
> Nabokov a modernist? Pastiche, collage, mongrelled genres,
> interpretive play, resistance to definition, decadence... the
> list goes on and on. Nabokov was one of the finest
> postmodernists.
Given that definition of postmodernism, I guess so. And that may be the
definition that's winning out.
>>> given certain definitions of "postmodernism".
>>
>> Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer."
>>
>> I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in _Postscript
>> to The Name of the Rose_ is the best. Under that definition, _The
>> Simpsons_ practically defines postmodernism.
>>
>> If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.
>
> I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember
> disagreeing with him, though.
<quote>
I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very
cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her 'I love you madly',
because he knows that she knows (and that she knows that 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, he will
nevertheless have said what he wanted to say to the woman: that he
loves her in an age of lost innocence. If the woman goes along with
this, she will have received a declaration of love all the same.
Neither of the two speakers will feel innocent, both will have accepted
the challenge of the past, of the already said, which cannot be
eliminated; both will consciously and with pleasure play the game of
irony...But both will have succeeded, once again, in the speaking of
love.
</quote>
Modernism spelled the death of meaning, and therefore of significance.
Postmodernism is a way of rolling with that punch and subversively
asserting meaning and significance anyway. Hence my statement that The
Simpsons is postmodern--a postmodern Brady Bunch to be more specific.
Unlike other movements, postmodernism does not succeed its predecessor
but exists alongside it. Indeed, postmodernism, by this definition,
can't exist except in tension with modernism. If we forget the anti-
significance of modernism, we no longer need to express meaning
subversively.
To me, part of the essence of postmodernism is that you can't appear to
take the struggle seriously. You don't appear to take anything
seriously. You undercut your most serious points as a preemptive
strike, and yet somehow still you make them. Whether this describes
Nabokov, I don't know. It doesn't seem to me to describe Joyce or
Sterne or Homer.
There are other ways of dealing with modernism, of course.
One way is to pretend it never happened. I would call this the
"premodern" movement. Often this involves going back to a literally
premodern time. Last decades infusion of Jane Austen based movies would
be an example. (Except for _Clueless_ which was decidedly postmodern.)
Another way is to bid open defiance to modernism, asserting meaning in
the face of meaninglessness. This is done in contrast to
postmodernism's slyness. The film _Magnolia_ would be a good example of
this approach.
> The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to Virginia
> Woolf. She said that "human character changed" "on or about
> December 1910". Modernism was born, she claimed.
>
> In 1977, Charles Jencks responded, claiming that modernism ended
> on 15th July 1972, at 3:32 pm. It was then that Minouru
> Yamasaki's Pruitt-Igoe housing project was demolished.
>
> I don't agree with Jencks (who was probably only messing around).
> If literary postmodernism is a list of textual features, then
> there is a good case for Homer, a better one for Sterne, and a
> water-tight one for the later Joyce.
I think your preferred definition is different from mine. I suspect
yours is closer to what most academicians mean and I'm being a hopeles
prescriptivist. I just find the *concept* Eco was getting at to be a
lot more useful and deserving of its own word.
On the other hand, there's some question about whether the word means
anything at all. (And if it doesn't, then modernism has won the
dialectical war.) Here's a postmodern reaction to UVA philospher
Richard Rorty's 1997 declaration that the word never really meant
anything:
http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/humor/jones.htm
The article, or whatever you want to call it, seems more geared toward
your definition of postmodernism. Maybe that makes Eco's definition
really about post-postmodernism.
Simon R. Hughes
> "Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>> Thus spake Opus the Penguin:
>>> I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in _Postscript
>>> to The Name of the Rose_ is the best. Under that definition, _The
>>> Simpsons_ practically defines postmodernism.
>>>
>>> If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.
>>
>> I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember
>> disagreeing with him, though.
>
> <quote>
>
> I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very
> cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her 'I love you madly',
> because he knows that she knows (and that she knows that 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, he will
> nevertheless have said what he wanted to say to the woman: that he
> loves her in an age of lost innocence. If the woman goes along with
> this, she will have received a declaration of love all the same.
> Neither of the two speakers will feel innocent, both will have accepted
> the challenge of the past, of the already said, which cannot be
> eliminated; both will consciously and with pleasure play the game of
> irony...But both will have succeeded, once again, in the speaking of
> love.
>
> </quote>
This was covered by Sartre years earlier. In "What is
Literature", he claimed that when you name something, you change
it. Henceforth, it will not be possible to relate to what ever it
is disregarding the naming. You might decide to relate to it
anyway, but then you are doing so in willful defiance of the
naming.
> Modernism spelled the death of meaning, and therefore of significance.
I would argue with that, to the extent that the New Critics (Hi,
Franke) were Modernists, yet were searching for the authoritative
meaning through close reading. "Grand Narratives" and all that.
In literature also, the High Modernists, such as Virginia Woolf,
T.S. Eliot and James Joyce sought after meaning. Woolf looked to
the mundane, leaving the question unanswered. Eliot and Joyce,
however, looked to older and/ or foreign literature to underpin
their work, insisting on meaningfulness.
(If it hasn't already been done, a comparison of _Mrs Dalloway_,
in which the question of meaning in the mundane is left open,
with _Ulysses_, in which the mythological structure insists there
is a meaning in Bloom's daily life, would provide hours of fun
for the whole family.)
> Postmodernism is a way of rolling with that punch and subversively
> asserting meaning and significance anyway. Hence my statement that The
> Simpsons is postmodern--a postmodern Brady Bunch to be more specific.
Yes, but I would place the death of significance in
postmodernism, as implied in the above. Postmodernism is the
movement (if it is a movement) that has drawn the conclusion that
meaning is dead (cf. the writings of the deconstructionists).
> Unlike other movements, postmodernism does not succeed its predecessor
> but exists alongside it. Indeed, postmodernism, by this definition,
> can't exist except in tension with modernism. If we forget the anti-
> significance of modernism, we no longer need to express meaning
> subversively.
See the Sartre thing above. We can't ignore it now it's been
named. If we purposefully ignore it, we are still acknowledging
it by the snub.
> To me, part of the essence of postmodernism is that you can't appear to
> take the struggle seriously. You don't appear to take anything
> seriously. You undercut your most serious points as a preemptive
> strike, and yet somehow still you make them. Whether this describes
> Nabokov, I don't know. It doesn't seem to me to describe Joyce or
> Sterne or Homer.
It certainly does describe Sterne. And Cervantes, come to think
of it. If Joyce's later work, ostensibly _Finnegans Wake_, is
taken seriously, it is a sad testiment to the academy. He plays!
Perhaps Homer doesn't play. It's difficult to tell when his hero
is called Hector.
> There are other ways of dealing with modernism, of course.
>
> One way is to pretend it never happened.
Sartre.
> I would call this the
> "premodern" movement. Often this involves going back to a literally
> premodern time. Last decades infusion of Jane Austen based movies would
> be an example. (Except for _Clueless_ which was decidedly postmodern.)
Didn't I mention nostalgia? That's another feature.
Bruno Latour claims that we have never been modern (in his book,
the translation of which is entitled _We Have Never Been
Modern_). He claims that we are still living in the
Enlightenment. It's been too long since I read it for me to
remember what I thought of his argument. (It's also been not long
enough since I read it; he is, after all, a French theorist, and
I am trying to give them up, fertile for thought as their
writings may be.)
> Another way is to bid open defiance to modernism, asserting meaning in
> the face of meaninglessness. This is done in contrast to
> postmodernism's slyness. The film _Magnolia_ would be a good example of
> this approach.
Sartre again.
>> The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to Virginia
>> Woolf. She said that "human character changed" "on or about
>> December 1910". Modernism was born, she claimed.
>>
>> In 1977, Charles Jencks responded, claiming that modernism ended
>> on 15th July 1972, at 3:32 pm. It was then that Minouru
>> Yamasaki's Pruitt-Igoe housing project was demolished.
>>
>> I don't agree with Jencks (who was probably only messing around).
>> If literary postmodernism is a list of textual features, then
>> there is a good case for Homer, a better one for Sterne, and a
>> water-tight one for the later Joyce.
>
> I think your preferred definition is different from mine. I suspect
> yours is closer to what most academicians mean and I'm being a hopeles
> prescriptivist. I just find the *concept* Eco was getting at to be a
> lot more useful and deserving of its own word.
>
> On the other hand, there's some question about whether the word means
> anything at all. (And if it doesn't, then modernism has won the
> dialectical war.) Here's a postmodern reaction to UVA philospher
> Richard Rorty's 1997 declaration that the word never really meant
> anything:
>
> http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/humor/jones.htm
>
> The article, or whatever you want to call it, seems more geared toward
> your definition of postmodernism. Maybe that makes Eco's definition
> really about post-postmodernism.
No, I think the term is such a hold-all that there is room for
everything. I don't see any inconsistency between Eco's example
and the textual features I listed. Do we need a new term? No, we
can just pretend the term was never invented, and talk about it
anyway.
Jean Paul Sartre is my accuser.
--
Simon R. Hughes
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
Apropos of nothing, I noticed that 'hoyden' comes from the Dutch 'heiden'.
Is there a similar word in Dutch today? The etymology for 'hoity-toity'
suggests 'hoyden', but I can't imagine they use it.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
> Apropos of nothing, I noticed that 'hoyden' comes from the Dutch 'heiden'.
> Is there a similar word in Dutch today?
No. M-W says that meaning is obsolete Dutch. Van Dale says that nowadays
there's "heiden" meaning "heathen," also "heide" meaning "heathland" or
"heath plant."