what is post modernism?
G Ushaw
what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
Matthew P Wiener
>The subject says it all. Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
>what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
POST modernism is the NEWEST STYLE of posting, involving CAPITAL LETTERS
and widespread DISTRIBUTION and UN-altered DISSEMINATION of IMPORTANT
INFORMATION that you WOULD NEVER have known if you hadn't ENCOURAGED
others by being THERE in the FIRST place.
Our patrons of POST modernism, ROBERT MCELWAINE and ALEXANDER ABIAN,
would PROBABLY be UPSET if you called them a POMO.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Mike Morris
G Ushaw asks:
The subject says it all. Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
Well, yes. Postmodernism is kind of like I were to say something
here dismissive about postmodernists or French lit crits (except I
haven't read any Derrida, so I wouldn't say anything dismissive
about him), perhaps ending with what the hell does aporia mean,
anyway? and Michael Bruce McDonald would ask me just what I meant
by that and that Derrida was really warm and fuzzy about
category boundaries like Lakoff and that has made all the difference
because would anyone feeling like he or she has taken the road
more travelled please raise his or her hand? and really the relativity
of knowledge is liberating from the on tyranny and besides sometimes
Derrida means relative like whenever anyone right-wing might have
something to say but he's really not usually that extremical, just
love's old sweet song and Nietzschean psychologizies and and
Joe Green, too oh dear oh dear but I would wonder about axiomisetic
metaphysics and does anyone really know what time it is? but that
would be to allude to too much and tell an old story again and again
just after we'd gotten through telling it, little more than ``after
modern'' really, which would get kind of boring without something new
to talk about, like Homer's sex-change operation and vive le differance
and how the verb in French really is reflexive but all those
American critics of deconstruction can't order the merest escargot
(look at it go!) from a French menu and how his whole style changed
into something substantial no more of this male power trip stuff,
and no phone sex either no mere Nicholson Baker's 1001 nights of touchy-heary,
but something positively Joycean in its implications and you get these
gothic spires on the buildings there but even the gargoyles are covered
with mirrored glasses like Mies van der Rohe were out hide terrorists
or something multicultural like that.
In un tempo debito.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
SubGenius
> what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
+--------------------------------------------SubG---------------------------+
Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
shake their hair at each other.
That is to say, it seems to have something to do with adolescence or
hormonal imbalance.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
michael bruce mcdonald
Mike, I don't know whether to be flattered or frightened that you single me out
as a pomo netter. I've been reading Habermas's *Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity* of late, and find it convincing enough, thus far, to say that I'm
not entirely convinced that the project of modernity is *over*. (By the way,
M S Rooney has called this Habermas work "execrable," but I'm not sure exactly
*why*). The only definition I'm aware of that would allow for a postmodernism
to exist alongside a yet-to-be-completed modernism is Lyotard's in "What is
Postmodernism" (an essay included at the end of *The Postmodern Condition*).
Interestingly enough, Lyotard argues that the modern-postmodern dynamic is a
cyclical one, and that periods of pomo actually *precede* periods of modernity.
Mike, I like the fact that, rather than offer yet another dry-as-dust
discursive definition of pomo, you choose to enact pomo for us instead. And I
find your parody rather amusing, though more modernist (with its emphasis on
stream-of-consciousness!) than pomo!
While I am very reluctant to offer a definition, since I fear that I might not
be able to offer something succinct, it needs to be said, for the nonce, that
the term pomo was first widely used as a description for styles prominent in
contemporary architecture, especially to describe a tendency to use motifs from
historical architectural styles as *ornament* rather than as the structural
*basis* of buildings. Thus, what is essentially a van der Rohe Modernist glass
box can be faced with Grecian columns, some nice, Romanesque marble, and
perhaps a portico near the top and Voila! you've got a pomo building. By the
way, nothing could be more confusing than the fact that van der Rohe's work
represents high Modernism in architecture, given the fact that Modernism in the
other arts is embodied in Joyce, Schoenberg, and Picasso!
I would simply recommend that the poster who asked the initial question read a
pomo novel like DeLillo's *White Noise*, so we can get down to some specifics
about what pomo is.
Again, thanks for scaring me by singling me out, Mike. I wonder if my pomo
tendencies have something to do with my being dickless while remaining saddled
with an undisguisably male name . . .
Michael Bruce McDonald
The Vodkinator
where around wwII. it defies a ready definition because it's a combination
of many different literary aspects. the only way to get a good feel for
what post modernism is, is to read some famous pm works or take a class. i
took a class on british postmodernism and i still don't have a definition.
the prof didn't either, and he didn't think it was that easy to define. it is
not just wearing black and hanging around coffee shops, so don't let anyone
tell you that grasping any literary movement is that easy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer A. Vodvarka |'Tyger!Tyger! burning bright |
E-mail: jav4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | In the forests of the night,|
University of Illinois in cow-town | What immortal hand or eye |
"Career...? Who needs a stinkin' career?" | Could frame thy fearful |
"You get what you settle for."-Louise, T & L | symmetry?'-W. Blake |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
********************************GO BULLS!!!*********************************
Jun Hong
>
> Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
> angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
> over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
> regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
> shake their hair at each other.
Don't forget chain-smoking.
--Hong Jun
--
Hong2jun1 bu2 pa4 yuan3 zheng1 nan2, Wan4 shui3 qian1 shan1 zhi3 deng3xian2.
Wu3 ling3 wei1yi2 teng2 xi4 lang4, Wu1meng2 pang2bo2 zou3 ni2 wan2.
Jin1sha1 shui3 "po6" yun2 yai2 nuan3, Da4du4 qiao2 heng2 tie3 suo3 han2.
Geng4 xi3 Min2shan1 qian1 li3 xue3, San1 jun1 guo4 hou4 jin4 kai1 yan2.
Vance Maverick
> it is not just wearing black and hanging around coffee shops, so don't
> let anyone tell you that grasping any literary movement is that easy.
I think one point of joking about coffee shops was to question whether
"postmodernism" really is a useful handle for a movement.
As far as I can tell, it's about as useful as the term "Elizabethan"
would have been to a contemporary of Elizabeth.
Vance
SubGenius
>> Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
>> angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
>> over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
>> regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
>> shake their hair at each other.
>
>Don't forget chain-smoking.
> --Hong Jun
+----------------------------------------------SubG--------------------------+
Quite. Clove cigarettes, at that.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
SubGenius
>post modernism is the latest literary 'movement' or 'age' that began some-
>where around wwII. it defies a ready definition because it's a combination
>of many different literary aspects. the only way to get a good feel for
>what post modernism is, is to read some famous pm works or take a class. i
>took a class on british postmodernism and i still don't have a definition.
>the prof didn't either, and he didn't think it was that easy to define. it is
>not just wearing black and hanging around coffee shops, so don't let anyone
>tell you that grasping any literary movement is that easy.
+----------------------------------------------SubG--------------------------+
Appy polly loggies for being so blase in trivializing the difficulties of
`grasping' postmodernism. Next thing you know I'll be making snide comments
concerning the ease with which I manage to get my capitalisation right.
Quiet interesting in that you admit that you don't understand the movement
yourself, by being unable to define it. Of course, you are exculpated by
the vast complexity and endless variety inherent in the movement, as opposed
to those relatively simple, but well-defined, literary eras. Like
`Renaissance.'
`It is a most
exquisite and
absolute horse.'
(All quotations
approximate. Net
weight before shipping.
Your milage may vary.)
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Greg Bole
(SubGenius) writes:
> Jennifer Vodvarka writes...
Please remove rec.arts.movies from the follow-ups for this thread.
It does not belong there.
Greg
michael bruce mcdonald
michael bruce mcdonald
Have you not seen *Slacker*, my good sirrah?
Michael Bruce McDonald
Sebastian Hagedorn
|> Subject: Re: what is post modernism?
|> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 05:37:54 MET DST
|> Organization: HHMI/Human Genetics, Univ of Pa.
Really??
Do you believe there is no post-modernism in movies?
Then look again!
One could argue that every movie released today HAS TO BE post-modernist
by definition. Of course that doesn't do a lot of good.
However, if Greenaway or Wenders aren't pomo, I don't know
what else they are...
In the interest of bringing the arts together, I would welcome
the continuation of the thread in ALL rec.arts groups.
--
Sebastian Hagedorn "Keep passing the open windows!"
Linguistic Data Processing
Cologne University
Germany
E-Mail: h...@spinfo.Uni-Koeln.DE
byshenk gregory m
>[...] I've been reading Habermas's *Philosophical Discourse of
>Modernity* of late, and find it convincing enough, thus far, to say that I'm
>not entirely convinced that the project of modernity is *over*. (By the way,
>M S Rooney has called this Habermas work "execrable," but I'm not sure exactly
>*why*). [...]
I think the problem is that Habermas is a terrible reader/interpreter of
other writers. One should withhold judgment about anyone of whom Habermas
is critical unless one is already familiar with that person's work.
The book is interesting, but a reader shouldn't think s/he is learning
about Nietzsche, Horkeimer, Adorno, Heidegger, Derrida, or Foucault by
reading _PDM_ (although s/he may learn a lot about Habermas).
--
Gregory Byshenk | The University? Hah! Half the time
gbys...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu | *I'm* not resonsible for my opinions!
"Says Red Molly to James: 'That's a fine motorbike...'" R.T.
michael bruce mcdonald
This post intrigues me for, coming to Habermas knowing a fair little about each
of the writers you mention above, I've been impressed with H's scholarship.
Specifically, while I've only completed the first of the 12 lectures that the
book comprises, I find H's knowledge and understanding of Hegel quite
impressive. Would you include Hegel in the list of names above, or are we ok
so far?
Best,
Michael Bruce McDonald
Gene W. Smith
>Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
>angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
>over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
>regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
>shake their hair at each other.
It is as I suspected. Post modernism and modernism are the same thing.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Andrew Wong
: The subject says it all. Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
: what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
According to a very quick 30-second explanaition from someone at Liverpool
St. John Moore's University when I went there for an interview ...
Post-Modernism is Post-Modern i.e. it takes a look at tomorrow, and bases
its' views on tomorrow from what is happening to today.
Example : BRAZIL (Terry Gilliam) is post-modern since you can easily spot
the similarities between that society and current society.
Of course I am talking a load of round testicles since I am not a
pretentious Socialist Worker artist or a cyberpunk so I therefore do not have
the right to discuss art even though I have more angst than all the others
put together :-)
--
Andrew Wong.................................E-mail : C.H.A...@bradford.ac.uk
=====x=====
I like Chinese food / The waiters never are rude / Think of the many things
they've done to impress / There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching and Chess. (Monty)
Mike Morris
Tuesday, the 8th of June, 1993
Gene Ward Smith writes:
It is as I suspected. Post modernism and modernism are the same thing.
No, no it's really very simple: Postmodernism came after modernism,
so that modernism actually preceded postmodernism, I mean
chronologically speaking, that is.
The heroes of Modernism were Joyce, Schoenberg, Picasso, and van der Rohe.
The heroes of Postmodernism are the postJoyceans, the postSchoenbergans,
postPicassoans, and postvanderRoheans.
Hope that clears it up, Gene, 'cause I'm still hoping you'll tell
us where there was any mathematics in _JP_. Speaking of which, I have just
seduced Martha into reading the damn thing, figuring that she'd
end up as shamelessly enthused about seeing the movie as I am. That
much of my plan seems to have worked out fine, but she keeps pausing
to explain all the ways in which it is a very poorly written book. I cannot
help but mumble my agreement while she reads on.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
Chris Brewster
I think one point of joking about coffee shops was to question whether
"postmodernism" really is a useful handle for a movement.
As far as I can tell, it's about as useful as the term "Elizabethan"
would have been to a contemporary of Elizabeth.
As someone pointed out, postmodernism has at least a little meaning in
architecture. Architectural modernism attempted to be rational,
ahistoric, international, often spartan and moralistic. Postmodernism
throws out at least one of those ideals--often deliberately anti-
rational, eclectically historicist, hedonistic, ornamental, whatever.
If someone can characterize what modernism is in another field, possibly
postmodernism can be assumed to overturn those ideals. Can it be said
that deconstructionism undoes New Criticism? [BTW, that other poster
mentioned Mies van der Rohe as the modernist archetype; I might suggest
Corbusier as being closer to the center.]
Chris Brewster E-MAIL ADDRESS: c...@cray.com
Vance Maverick
As someone pointed out, postmodernism has at least a little meaning in
architecture.
True enough.
Architectural modernism attempted to be rational,
ahistoric, international, often spartan and moralistic.
If someone can characterize what modernism is in another field,
Not so narrowly. In literature, for instance, the modernist founders
have hardly been ahistorical -- maybe Beckett aside, but he's a late
case, already post in a way.
[...] possibly postmodernism can be assumed to overturn those ideals.
Now there's a strong claim! Something for writers to rally behind.
Vance
E. Kontei
>
> The heroes of Modernism were Joyce, Schoenberg, Picasso, and van der Rohe.
> The heroes of Postmodernism are the postJoyceans, the postSchoenbergans,
> postPicassoans, and postvanderRoheans.
Thus, comic books, videogames and musicvids are postmodern art forms?
Interesting.
--
E n r i q u e C o n t y
The Flip-Flip Man
co...@cbnewsl.att.com jes...@ihlpm.att.com
Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
John Locke
> Gene Ward Smith writes:
> It is as I suspected. Post modernism and modernism are the same thing.
>
> No, no it's really very simple: Postmodernism came after modernism,
> so that modernism actually preceded postmodernism, I mean
> chronologically speaking, that is.
Raise your hand if you're nostalgic for premodernism.
jmat...@uswest.com
>
>Yours etc.,
>
>SubGenius
Well put. But don't forget the clove cigarettes! And the hair which is shaken
must be long, poorly cut, and of a color not naturally occurring (mine was
often fuchsia in those days). ;-)
_______________________________________________________________________
jmat...@uswat.advtech.uswest.com U S WEST doesn't even know
Jaye Matthews i have an opinion.
Annette M Van
>Best,
>Michael Bruce McDonald
Hmmm. I do find Habermas useful, but I have to agree with Byshenk that
H's reading of Horkheimer and Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" is
pretty off-base.
Annette
SubGenius
>Well put. But don't forget the clove cigarettes!
+------------------------------------------SubG----------------------------+
I didn't.
+------------------------------------------SubG----------------------------+
>And the hair which is shaken
>must be long, poorly cut, and of a color not naturally occurring (mine was
>often fuchsia in those days). ;-)
+-------------------------------------------SubG---------------------------+
You only get partial credit for fuchsia; although it is not a natural hair
colour for humans, it is a colour that can be found in nature. For full
credit you'd need a shade or hue not located in Nature's palette, like
acid green, yellow (that is to say `caution: men at work' yellow, and
not the more pedestrian `blonde') or perhaps something metallic.
Well, I have long,
poorly cut hair,
but I sincerely
doubt it could be
considered `post-
modern,'
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
sometimes a Wombat
> Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
> what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
No.
There were many forms of modernism -- which was, in part, part of the
point -- and what _your_ post-modernism is depends on which modernism
you are post-ing.
ObBookTangent: I have been reading Robinson Jeffers, and thinking about
how different his modernism is from, say, "Tommy" Eliot's.
Larry "So much for soup -- how about stew?" Hammer
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ Hidden harmony is better than manifest.
GEnie: LARRY.HAMMER \ -- Heraclitus, #47
Chuck Smythe
>ObBookTangent: I have been reading Robinson Jeffers, and thinking about
>how different his modernism is from, say, "Tommy" Eliot's.
Care to expand on this? "Modernism" and "Jeffers" in the same sentence? I
always thought of him as profoundly reactionary.
Chuck Smythe
Mike Morris
I wrote:
The heroes of Modernism were Joyce, Schoenberg, Picasso, and van der Rohe.
The heroes of Postmodernism are the postJoyceans, the postSchoenbergans,
postPicassoans, and postvanderRoheans.
Enrique Conty responds:
Thus, comic books, videogames and musicvids are postmodern art forms?
Interesting.
Yes, it is very interesting when you look at it that way, because,
at least for those comic books that came after Joyce and Schoenberg
and Picasso and van der Rohe, since I'm sure we can safely assume
that videogames and musicvids came after any of them, it would
be a matter of asking the question whether or not a given comic book
was published after the death of all four of them and if we
knew the date of the comic book we could compare it with the dates
on which each of these men died and then, if in all 4 cases (well,
I count 2 and 2, but you can never be too sure) the publication
date of the comic book were after the death of the Modernist hero,
then we would surely be justified in declaring that comic book to
be a postmodern art form, for we would have succeeded in dividing
comic books into two complementary categories of comic books, those
that are postmodern, and those that are not, as I think would follow
upon mathematical investigation, though again I wouldn't want to be
too sure, say, if in fact van der Rohe lived the longest of the
number (let's call it that not to be too judgmental) and a given
comic book were published, say, before the death of Mies van der Rohe
but *after* the death of the other Modernist heroes, however many
this would make of them, if the narratologic technique of that
particular comic book were particularly advanced, arguably of a
kind with those comic books published much later than the death of
Mr. van der Rohe, then the case might then be made
that that comic book were really postmodern---after all, boundaries,
as we know, are fuzzy in all human categorization, so why
not the boundary between two culture-historical movements such as
modernism and postmodernism? and besides just whose history is it
anyway, since those guys look suspiciously male, and dead, too
(almost by definition, though we oughn't get too mathematical here),
I suppose white and European would follow and are we certain that
if we had used Islamic dates, for instance, for the dates of death
and for the comic-book publication dates whether the categorization
would be the same---I wouldn't want to speculate---anyway, interesting,
yes, very interesting unless we should perhaps reexamine even our
assumption that musicvids were wholly postmodern, it could be cultural
bias deriving from instantiation of contemporary trends in abbreviating
cultural terms---a class distinguishifier between those who have the
power to tune in to cultural fashions and those who have been marginilized
by the exploitation that these same fashions represent---and certain
very dated musicvids could arguably belong more closely to a pre-video
era, leading us perhaps into an athymy of aporetic distraction.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
Jim Kasprzak
|> Yes, it is very interesting when you look at it that way...
|>
|> [discussion of post-modernist comic books deleted]
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mike.
------------------------------------------------------------------
__ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
/____ *| "You're out of your tree."
\_| "It's not my tree."
==== e-mail: kas...@rpi.edu or kasp...@mts.rpi.edu
Mike Morris
Wednesday, the 9th of June, 1993
Men,---
Who would pen,---
Aren't penning anymore,
they're doing narratology.
Nooks,---
Who read books,---
Aren't reading anymore,
they're doing grammatology.
Say---
toujours gai---
Let fuzzy wuzzy
set your heartstrings free.
One and all,
They're not thinking
Like they used to be thinking---
Instead of thought, it's ideology.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
E. Kontei
> Thus, comic books, videogames and musicvids are postmodern art forms?
> Interesting.
>
I hope you'll forgive me if I write in a clearer manner. ^_^
You goofed. The medium does not dictate the artistic style (or the
genre, in the case of a narrative). A comic can follow pre-modernistic,
modernistic, or post-modernistic tendencies, depending on what the writer
wanted to do. It has nothing to do with WHEN was the book written.
In fact, it was only during the last couple of decades when comics started
implementing decidedly post-modernist techniques in any other than the most
experimental manner.
patt...@acf7.nyu.edu
Well, these are some very cutting, astute comments here, except for the fact
that they are wrong.
Allow me to explain. "Modernists" are the people you would find at the coffee
shop, wearing black, smoking, looking very pale & angst-ridden, etc.
Now. A "post-modernist," if he or she were to do such a thing as sit in a
coffee shop wearing black smoking looking depressed etc., (and a post-
modernist would not necessarily do this,) he or she would do it
*self-consciously* -- they would be aware of the fact that theu are playing
the role of the exitentialist modernist depressive.
Post-modern art is a departure from past movements in that it is mainly
concerned with genres, and the nature of storytelling. It's not trying
to represent reality, but rather to represent a representation of reality
(I'm misquoting David Majdiak here.)
Take "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Raiders" is a post modern movie, because
its a movie *about* adventure movies. Remember the scene where Indy is
fighting off about a dozen attackers at once, and after he's quite
laboriously punched and dodged and whipped each attacker he is confronted
by the expert swordsman. Indy looks tired of the whole business, takes out
his gun and shoots him dead. It's one of the biggest laughs in the movie,
and the reason it's so funny is that the film is pointing to its own
absurdity, and to the absurdity of the genre in general - *very* post-
modern!
I'm not saying that every post-modern novel has as its subject and story-
telling, but it seems to be a pretty consistent theme in the more
important post-modernist works.
Well gee, I don't think I have any big words left :-)
Ben Patterson
New York University
patt...@acfcluster.nyu.edu
Daniel G. Pruitt
>Post-modern art is a departure from past movements in that it is mainly
>concerned with genres, and the nature of storytelling. It's not trying
>to represent reality, but rather to represent a representation of reality
>(I'm misquoting David Majdiak here.)
Then, THE PLAYER, is the ultimate post-modern movie.
HOT SHOTS: PART DEUX comes in a close second.
--
Daniel Pruitt | "Sometimes I think that love is just a tumor,
pru...@zeppelin.convex.com | You've got to cut it out." --Elvis Costello
mil...@acf1.nyu.edu
>(SubGenius) writes:
>
>>Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
>>angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
>>over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
>>regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
>>shake their hair at each other.
>
You've just described the Beats, and almost every other Bohemian uprising,
from the enlightenment, to Oscar Wilde, to the present.
How do you explain this?
SubGenius
>>angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
>>over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a corpse'
>>regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
>>shake their hair at each other.
>You've just described the Beats, and almost every other Bohemian uprising,
>from the enlightenment, to Oscar Wilde, to the present.
>How do you explain this?
+------------------------------------------------SubG-----------------------+
Well, I don't feel any particular need to explain anything, but nevertheless
I will take this opportunity to observe that it would seem that every
generation seems to produce a load of angstroopers wanting nothing more than
the opportunity dress sillily and emote at each other. The rationalisation
behind such gatherings varies.
`Billy baby, take a toke of
this and reLATE to us, man.'
`Well, buddy Ben, I just looked over
your ms for _Every Dude in His Humour_,
and let me tell you, man....'
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Mike Morris
Enrique Conty wrote:
Thus, comic books, videogames and musicvids are postmodern art forms?
Interesting.
I began my most careful and apodeictic analysis of this pressing question:
Yes, it is very interesting when you look at it that way [...]
To which EC replies:
I hope you'll forgive me if I write in a clearer manner. ^_^
Forgive, yes, but forget, no---not at least until the advent
of the post^2.5modernist era.
You goofed.
No. That's the hollow remnant left over of Francis after Fido went away.
I'm much more of a galoot myself.
The medium does not dictate the artistic style (or the
genre, in the case of a narrative).
Not dictate? I take that as an ill-meant slur on the honoured
profession of tin-pot dictatorship. Fie on independence of
artistic style, authorial intent, and all that jazz! Fie on
goodness, fie!
A comic can follow pre-modernistic,
modernistic, or post-modernistic tendencies, depending on what the writer
wanted to do. It has nothing to do with WHEN was the book written.
But it does, but it does, for our most advanced postmodern philosophizies
have proved that a comic's tendencies are fully determined by the
power structures imposed during the second trimester after conception.
Since it is well known the very same power structures determine
WHEN an author's books may be written if written (and if ``written''
is really the word, since all writing is really reading), as well as
WHEN cultural heroes do die, you can see it has everything to do with
WHEN the book was written.
Think of the Green function. Think of the E upon the stone.
In fact, it was only during the last couple of decades when comics started
implementing decidedly post-modernist techniques in any other than the most
experimental manner.
Yes, but my point was that it could be this manner is deceptive.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
Andy Pearlman
>patt...@ACF7.NYU.EDU writes:
>>Post-modern art is a departure from past movements in that it is mainly
>>concerned with genres, and the nature of storytelling. It's not trying
>>to represent reality, but rather to represent a representation of reality
>>(I'm misquoting David Majdiak here.)
>Then, THE PLAYER, is the ultimate post-modern movie.
>HOT SHOTS: PART DEUX comes in a close second.
Yes and no. The Player and Hot Shots are parodies. The key things which make
Indiana post-modern is that Indiana Jones is a serious action adventure movie,
which recognizes that, and makes fun of itself. However, it is not really a
pure post-modern movie.
Post-modernism is generally concerned with history, humor, the nature of story
telling, and how interactive is the author with the audience. The major
problems that post-modernists have is that the characters are sacrificed in
favor of the complicated plot and excess cleverness. Ideas are more
important than meanings. While that might sound simple, that last sentence is
a major divide between Post-Modernists and Abstract Expressionists.
Some Post-Modern novels:
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Marquez
The Crying of Lot 49 by Pynchon
The French Lieutenant's Woman by Fowles
The Name of the Rose by Eco
The Magus by Fowles is also interesting, because it shows some of the steps
in his thought processes. I would read the Magus first, btw, if possible.
Andy Pearlman
Lisa S Chabot
>You only get partial credit for fuchsia; although it is not a natural hair
>colour for humans, it is a colour that can be found in nature. For full
>credit you'd need a shade or hue not located in Nature's palette, like
>acid green, yellow (that is to say `caution: men at work' yellow, and
>not the more pedestrian `blonde')
Yellow? A rose by any other name would be King's Ransom, or perhaps
Sun Flare. Not to mention the homely dandelion (and the pollen on your
chin), the merry golden flowers of the sun, the undersides of larks
and sapsuckers, the windows of a cat's soul, the lichen on the shingled
roof, frilled tidepool worms, the owls in their treetops, autumn aspen
leaves, swallowtails and squash blossoms, crocuses above the snow,
the world traveller: banana.
> or perhaps something metallic.
Like the iridescence of bird feathers and butterfly wings, of cats eyes
and caracal ears, beetle bones, fish scales and oyster shells.
--
"You can attract more dingbats with passion
than with honeyed waffling."
Charles Packer
>contemporary architecture, especially to describe a tendency to use motifs from
>historical architectural styles as *ornament* rather than as the structural
>*basis* of buildings. Thus, what is essentially a van der Rohe Modernist glass
This accords with a concise phrase, "indifferent to questions of
continuity or consistency", used to describe postmodernism in
a book review I read somewhere (or possibly a movie review, hey you
who said this thread doesn't belong in rec.arts.movies).
Mike Morris
Jim Kasprzak writes:
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Mike.
Well, you're welcome, Jim. I always try to strive for clarity in my
writing. Well, not clarity so much as precision---saying
precisely what is clear, or what ought to be made clear, though
of course some might consider one of the better techniques for
achieving such precision of clarity to be chiaroscuro, a contrast really
between light and dark, between clarity and obfuscation. That's kind of
like the long-running debate about Forewards and Prefaces really
being written *after* the book, so that they really should be called
Afterwards and Postfaces---one sees that it might be necessary to employ
a kind of obfuscation in the process of achieving a kind of clarity---
one might almost be tempted to say that any obfuscation attains to a kind
of clarification, and that seeing through a freshly-washed glass is
the same as seeing through a glass darkly, being blind's a kind of
seeing, and every Renaissance a Dark Age.
But, then again, if it's something that ought to be made clear, that
kind of implies that the something isn't already clear---a kind of
becoming or potentiality for clearness is implied by present opacity
or translucence, meaning that the raw materials out of which
any clarity might be made are wholly in the dark, and the process of
clarification might then become a kind of transcendence, a reaching out
beyond the narrow cultural boundaries of ourselves, a not-to-say
sexual yet profoundly erotic encounter with the void.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca)
Vance Bell
newsgroup dedicated to critical and postmodern theory. A discussion of
works by both the Frankfurt School and "Postmodernist" theorists, as well
as the implications of their thought on contemporary issues and situations.
Interested individuals please send e-mail to:
or post to the rec.arts.fine newsgroup.
Vance Bell
University of Pennsylvania
Damon B. Crumpler
i think an asoect, or perhaps the major aspect of
post modernism is deconstuctivism (named as such to
make it the ism name with the most syllables), which pretty
much reduces (mostly modern) works to their (essence
is the wrong word, but close) basics or metafictional
aspects.
Also, revisionism (such as the watchmen) is the same
aspect of this phenomenon.
I', sorry for being so serious about this whole thing.
--
"All art is at once substance and surface- those who go beneath
do so at their peril."-Wilde//"I know things that have been for-
got"-Sim//Everyone knows everything-we just pretend to ourselves
that we don't"-Gaiman//Knowledge is evil. Everything is true.-Me
Damon B. Crumpler
i do not agree with mr. Pearlman that the player is
a parody. if anything, it fits the
rest of his description of post modernistic works to a T.
Andy Pearlman
>i think an asoect, or perhaps the major aspect of
>post modernism is deconstuctivism (named as such to
>make it the ism name with the most syllables), which pretty
>much reduces (mostly modern) works to their (essence
>is the wrong word, but close) basics or metafictional
>aspects.
>Also, revisionism (such as the watchmen) is the same
>aspect of this phenomenon.
Ah, not really. It would be similar to call Writers and Philosophers an
aspect of each other. They may be similar, but for the most part are
really seperate.
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman
>
>i do not agree with mr. Pearlman that the player is
>a parody. if anything, it fits the
>rest of his description of post modernistic works to a T.
Eh? The Player is an insider's version of a possible mogul, with lots of
cameos by various actors. Very vicious satire, but it is funny. It is not
about the *act* of being funny, what *defines* funny. The Player is self-
concious, but does not examine history from a post-modern viewpoint. It
examines itself from a contemporary point of view. A post-modern version of
the Player might be taking the same movie, making it look like it was made in
the 1950's, using cameos by 1950's stars, and examining the effects of the
blacklist. Being good doesn't make something post-modern or the other way
around.
By the definition you seem to be using, virtually anything is post-modern.
Andy Pearlman
Mark Eric Stein
> Post-Modernism is Post-Modern i.e. it takes a look at tomorrow, and bases
> its' views on tomorrow from what is happening to today.
> Example : BRAZIL (Terry Gilliam) is post-modern since you can easily spot
> the similarities between that society and current society.
Ahhhhh, j'comprende....
I have seen the future. And IT SUCKS!
> Of course I am talking a load of round testicles since I am not a
> pretentious Socialist Worker artist or a cyberpunk so I therefore do not have
> the right to discuss art even though I have more angst than all the others
> put together :-)
Don't feel so bad...I'm a law school graduate, and even *I* dare to
discuss art, philosophy, sometimes even love, for crissakes...
-Mark
p.s. The waiters are never rude, huh...next time you're in Boston, drop
in to the Golden Palace. Last time I was there, they saw we were Anglos
and put us in the *back* of the dining room, behind a partition...and oh
my, the look of contempt when the waiter slammed the forks down on the
table! Didn't touch mine the whole time, although chopstick handling
with a broken wrist was killing me...but I wouldn't give them the
satisfaction. }:-\
==__-+- (Kobayashi Maru .sig file) *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__
pere...@argyll.enigma1.com
Discorporate Counsel, "You're a Tiassa, think of something!"
CthulhuCon: Arkham in '98 "You're a Dragon, kill something!"
Mark Eric Stein
> The heroes of Modernism were Joyce, Schoenberg, Picasso, and van der Rohe.
> The heroes of Postmodernism are the postJoyceans, the postSchoenbergans,
> postPicassoans, and postvanderRoheans.
Oh dear...does that mean the Pre-Joycean Fellowship* is a pack of
Premodernists?
-Mark
* the PJF is a group of writers (Steven Brust, Pamela Dean and others)
that started in Minnesota. Their basic principle is that Joyce did a
disservice to novelists everywhere by advancing abstract artistic
'values' over plot and character development.
Mark Eric Stein
> Architectural modernism attempted to be rational,
> ahistoric, international, often spartan and moralistic. Postmodernism
> throws out at least one of those ideals--often deliberately anti-
> rational, eclectically historicist, hedonistic, ornamental, whatever.
> If someone can characterize what modernism is in another field, possibly
> postmodernism can be assumed to overturn those ideals.
But if we want to describe it as a rejection of one or more of the
strictures of modernism, wouldn't it make more sense to call the
(movement? school? mindset?) PRE-modern, in a manner analogous to, for
instance, the pre-Raphaelite trend (which came after Raphael)?
-Mark
michael bruce mcdonald
>msmo...@watsci.uwaterloo.ca (Mike Morris) writes:
>
>> The heroes of Modernism were Joyce, Schoenberg, Picasso, and van der Rohe.
>> The heroes of Postmodernism are the postJoyceans, the postSchoenbergans,
>> postPicassoans, and postvanderRoheans.
>
>Oh dear...does that mean the Pre-Joycean Fellowship* is a pack of
>Premodernists?
>
>-Mark
>
>* the PJF is a group of writers (Steven Brust, Pamela Dean and others)
>that started in Minnesota. Their basic principle is that Joyce did a
>disservice to novelists everywhere by advancing abstract artistic
>'values' over plot and character development.
Frankly, this is an idiotic position to take, unless one is prepared to defend
the ridiculous notion that the era of the novel is limited to the productions
of the nineteenth century. Anyone who has thought about the novel's origins in
works like *Don Quixote*, *Clarissa*, *Moll Flanders*, or *Tristram Shandy*
cannot escape the simple fact that such works have a *lot* going on besides
mere character or plot development. Did Richardson and Sterne really need all
those pages to develop their plots, or the characters of their protagonists?
Of course not! The novel was born in excess, and in excess it shall live. And
in *that* sense, Joyce is a far more traditional novelist than any bare-bones
realist you would care to name.
Michael Bruce McDonald
michael bruce mcdonald
>c...@tamarack13.timbuk (Chris Brewster) writes:
>
>> Architectural modernism attempted to be rational,
>> ahistoric, international, often spartan and moralistic. Postmodernism
>> throws out at least one of those ideals--often deliberately anti-
>> rational, eclectically historicist, hedonistic, ornamental, whatever.
>> If someone can characterize what modernism is in another field, possibly
>> postmodernism can be assumed to overturn those ideals.
>
>But if we want to describe it as a rejection of one or more of the
>strictures of modernism, wouldn't it make more sense to call the
>(movement? school? mindset?) PRE-modern, in a manner analogous to, for
>instance, the pre-Raphaelite trend (which came after Raphael)?
>
>-Mark
Inasmuch as gestures of rejection partake of cultural modes still able to
conceive themselves as *critical*, such gestures are far, far more typical of
Modernism than of Postmodernism. Joyce, for instance, made his rejection of
the Irish Literary Revival quite explicit: "That they may dream their dreamy
dreams/I carry off their filthy streams." Paradoxically, Modernism is a
profoundly traditional movement insofar as it carries forward the *critical*
roles of the very cultures whose *forms and content* it tends to reject.
I see postmodernity as largely weary of the task of criticism and outright
rejection; thus, the postmodern pose of including earlier styles (as in pomo
architecture) is a gesture expressive of a certain accomodation born of
enervation, rather than a passionately democratic act born of critical
discernment.
This is not to demean postmodernism, but rather to point out that we do well to
remain wary of certain pomo gestures. And this is one reason why I find a book
like *White Noise*--a work that both articulates postmodern values and
discovers the otherwise obscure dangers lurking within their accomodationist
pose--so truly indispensable.
Michael Bruce McDonald
Dan Hartung
>post modernism is deconstuctivism (named as such to
>make it the ism name with the most syllables), which pretty
>much reduces (mostly modern) works to their (essence
>is the wrong word, but close) basics or metafictional
>aspects.
Well, deconstruction is just one way of doing that.
But you've really hit the nail on the head with the word
"metafictional". This is the "essence", or shall we say
the common thread, among all postmodern disciplines.
>Also, revisionism (such as the watchmen) is the same
>aspect of this phenomenon.
Well, _Watchmen_ is postmodern, but "revisionism" isn't really
a critical discipline as much as an attitude that can fit within
modernism or anything.
Although, for example, _Unforgiven_ was revisionist at the same
time as being very postmodern.
>I', sorry for being so serious about this whole thing.
Not at all. You gave the best answer I've seen so far.
--
| Oh wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursel's as others see us |
| I used to be a Gateway fan. Then I became a Gateway customer. |
| The US Tourist Season is now open. Bag one while they last. |
Daniel A. Hartung -- dhar...@chinet.chinet.com -- Ask me about Rotaract
Dan Hartung
>The subject says it all. Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
>what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
I'll assume you want a SHORT definition as well as "reasonable". (I
haven't seen a good one yet, mostly complaining misunderstanding
definitions.)
"Postmodernism" is basically that collection of critical thought that
came after modernism. It's not all mutually consistent.
Consider that "modernism" is basically art created by "modern" man,
i.e. Man with Self-Knowledge such as that gained by the new discipline
of science. As such, it developed at the beginning of this century.
After a generation or so of playing with the new freedom granted by
Modernism (Joyce, Eliot, Picasso), and experiencing the utter
breakdown and inversion of the Wonderful World of Science as represented
by World War II and the Bomb, a new attitude developed, "post-Modernism".
The basic idea is that when we look at a "text", i.e. a book or painting
or movie, we are seeing more than the actual words or brushstrokes --
we are seeing the expression of an entire culture. This leads to
disciplines such as semiotics (the science of meaning), socialist
criticism (cultural imperatives expressed in art), feminist criticism
(sexism -- and by extension a larger human dualism -- expressed in
art).... as well as a bunch of other lesser theories.
In short, Modernism was Man seeing himself clearly for the first time
(as was thought at the time); post-Modernism is Man realizing he can
never ever see himself clearly, no matter how hard he tries.
Dan Hartung
>According to a very quick 30-second explanaition from someone at Liverpool
>St. John Moore's University when I went there for an interview ...
>
>Post-Modernism is Post-Modern i.e. it takes a look at tomorrow, and bases
>its' views on tomorrow from what is happening to today.
>
>Example : BRAZIL (Terry Gilliam) is post-modern since you can easily spot
>the similarities between that society and current society.
>
>pretentious Socialist Worker artist or a cyberpunk so I therefore do not have
>the right to discuss art even though I have more angst than all the others
>put together :-)
*sigh* Post-Modern simply means the theories about art and culture that
came into being AFTER (i.e. "post", get it?) the Modern era, which ended
long before most netters were born.
It has *nothing* to do with "tomorrow" or "science fiction" althought
postmodern literature can be sf or "look at tomorrow". It has much
more to do with the attitude of the artist toward his art and the
reader/viewer to that art and the art as the connection/communication
between the two.
No wonder people like Allan Bloom want to get rid of pomo criticism.
Nobody but nobody has a frigging handle on it.
*sigh*
Mike Godwin
>Oh dear...does that mean the Pre-Joycean Fellowship* is a pack of
>Premodernists?
>
>-Mark
>
>* the PJF is a group of writers (Steven Brust, Pamela Dean and others)
>that started in Minnesota. Their basic principle is that Joyce did a
>disservice to novelists everywhere by advancing abstract artistic
>'values' over plot and character development.
In that case, their "basic principle" is a lie. Steven Brust has never,
to my knowledge, approached the character development of, say,
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN.
--Mike
Mark Taranto
> post-Modernism is Man realizing he can never ever see himself
> clearly, no matter how hard he tries.
So, Socrates was a Post-Modern?
Mark
lam...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
revealing some earth-shattering news about the nature of mankind and
his relation to the universe/text/building/movie? When Pynchon or
Fowles points out "Hey! You're reading a book!" when I read one of
their books, I am neither surprised nor impressed. Most of us could
write a self-referential text (which I will now make metatextual by
saying "Just like this one" -- ta-da!) with no effort. So when I
encounter essays on grammatology or the bliss of the text or the
Lacanian mirror-stage or "differance" or semiotics, I tend to view
them with the same disdain as religious pamphlets -- it's not that
they don't have something to say, it's just that I resent the tone and
the presentation.
If you'd like to flame me, remember what Foucault said about the death
of the author. I only exist because you need some construct of me to
exist in order to contextualize your response to this text, which
really has nothing to do with me or you and can't be fully grasped by
any of us, anyway.
Andy Lamers
University of Kansas -- "It's not the end of the world,
but you can see it from here."
Brian Nation
> (SubGenius) writes:
>
> >Post modernism seems to primarily entail wearing black, becoming trendily
> >angst-ridden, and discussing how intimately related sex and death are
> >over your expresso to some lass done up in her best `I wish I was a
> corpse'
> >regalia in some club where they play industrial music to which the patrons
> >shake their hair at each other.
>
Expresso???
I haven't seen this spelling since the days of anti-beatnik rants in the
daily papers, Life, Look, and the local news.
sometimes a Wombat
> > I have been reading Robinson Jeffers, and thinking about
> > how different his modernism is from, say, "Tommy" Eliot's.
In response to which, chu...@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe) wrote:
> Care to expand on this? "Modernism" and "Jeffers" in the same sentence? I
> always thought of him as profoundly reactionary.
Well, a poetic reactionary would have written with more of an ear for
the sound for the sound's sake, rather than in vatic free verse
somewhere between Whitman and Ginzberg in manner -- if far stronger
than the latter's. But one could also talk about the philosophy of
"inhumanism" as he calls it, which seems to be a mixture of Wordsworth's
pantheism and Nietchze, only more extreme. He sometimes goes over the
line and descends into outright nihilism.
The differences of the modernism I first mentioned is that Jeffers is
neither ironic nor allusive or fragmentary. He states exactly what he
means in direct narratives and lyrics. Though I rather disagree with
the worldview he propounds, 'tis a refreshing manner that I happen to
like.
Larry "Wee don't need no steenkin leemurs" Hammer
--
\ The work is rather too light, and bright,
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ and sparkling; it wants ... a long chapter
sometimes a Wombat \ of solemn specious nonsense. -- Jane Austen
Mark Eric Stein
> Take "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Raiders" is a post modern movie, because
> its a movie *about* adventure movies. Remember the scene where Indy is
> fighting off about a dozen attackers at once, and after he's quite
> laboriously punched and dodged and whipped each attacker he is confronted
> by the expert swordsman. Indy looks tired of the whole business, takes out
> his gun and shoots him dead. It's one of the biggest laughs in the movie,
> and the reason it's so funny is that the film is pointing to its own
> absurdity, and to the absurdity of the genre in general - *very* post-
> modern!
As much as I hate to pee in your corn flakes, Ben, the scene you cite
was _not_ planned, thus undermining your argument. The fact of the
matter is, Harrison Ford was down with dysentery. He'd been working
through his illness, and was downright exhausted and disgusted. They'd
choreographed a lengthy, complex sword-whip combat sequence, and after
ten or eleven takes hadn't gotten it right. It was hot, dusty, Ford felt
like scrape-resistant deposits in the bottom of a chamber-pot. In what
would have been a fit of pique if he'd had the energy for it, he drew
the pistol and fired. The stunt man doing the swordplay had the presence
of mind to "take" the hit, and the scene was so priceless that it got
left in.
Entirely unplanned, but brilliant.
==__-+- (Kobayashi Maru .sig file) *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__ *-=/__
pere...@argyll.enigma1.com
Discorporate Counsel, "You are a Tiassa, think of something!"
CthulhuCon: Arkham in '98 "You are a Dragon, kill something!"
roger m squires
>
>> Take "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Raiders" is a post modern movie, because
>> its a movie *about* adventure movies. Remember the scene where Indy is
>> .... It's one of the biggest laughs in the movie,
>> and the reason it's so funny is that the film is pointing to its own
>> absurdity, and to the absurdity of the genre in general - *very* post-
>> modern!
>
>As much as I hate to pee in your corn flakes, Ben, the scene you cite
>
Ha! I'm reminded of an old Peanuts strip in which Lucy
finds what she thinks is a rare butterfly on the ground,
and goes off on a long rant about how it must have
flown up from South America. After several minutes of
this Linus takes a close look at the object and exclaims:
"This isn't a butterfly, it's a potato-chip!"
rms
Gordon Fitch
a thread vaguely similar to this one has been running in
alt.postmodern for the last few weeks, without one noticing
the other, although the one there rose amid trans-Uralic
conspiracies. It's probably gone from your machine now,
but you can pick up on my pomo reading program as a
consolation.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Greg Bole
(roger m squires) writes:
>>As much as I hate to pee in your corn flakes, Ben, the scene you cite
>>was _not_ planned, thus undermining your argument. ...
> Ha! I'm reminded of an old Peanuts strip in which Lucy
> finds what she thinks is a rare butterfly on the ground,
> and goes off on a long rant about how it must have
> flown up from South America. After several minutes of
> this Linus takes a close look at the object and exclaims:
> "This isn't a butterfly, it's a potato-chip!"
One of my favorite Peanuts jokes, but you missed the punch line!!!
Lucy says "I wonder how that potato chip got here from South America?"
Greg Bole "All of life's riddles
bo...@hmivax.humgen.upenn.edu are answered in the movies."
Steve Martin in _Grand Canyon_
Paul C Duggan
>>The subject says it all. Can anyone give a reasonable definition of just
>>what post modernism (or pomo as we call it) is?
A parable (not orignial with me):
I ran into a man who was by a haystack. He was peering at the haystack,
occasionaly picking at a few bits of hay, gently riummaging around. I
asked him "what are you doing?"
"Looking for a diamond pin. I belive it got lost in here somewhere."
"Oh. Have a nice day," I said. I continued on to the market.
Later that day as I was returning, I saw the man at the haystack again.
The haystack was half demolished, and the man was more frantic in his
search. I asked him if he found the pin.
"No, I still looking! I'll find it for sure, though!"
"O.K. Good evening."
The next day, as I returned to market, I saw the man again. The haystask
was gone, hay strewn all over. The man was sitting in the middle, pulling
up clumps of hay and tossing them into the air, around, and on his head. I
asked him what he was doing now.
"Well, I decided that the pin wasn't anywhere in the haystack, but I
decided in the process that I did quite enjoy playing with the hay"
paul duggan.
roger m squires
>
>One of my favorite Peanuts jokes, but you missed the punch line!!!
>
Very well. :) In any case, to paraphrase a famous philosopher
(Linus): "Thus endeth today's postmodernism lesson."
>
>Greg Bole "All of life's riddles
rms
Andrew Infante
THAT is post-modernism?
--
Andy Infante | Most of the fear that spoils our life comes from attacking |
'71 BMW R60/5 | difficulties before we get to them. -- Dr. Frank Crane |
DoD #2426 | |
==============| My opinions, dammit, have nothing to do with anyone else!!! |
sct
(To me the book only followed the development of the aesthetic "epiphany"
of Dedalus, but failed to give him any humanity.)
I think this PJF have a good point (how I read the above paragraph):
from what I have read in this thread on pomo, it seems that it is
nothing more than writers egotism, art for art's sake. Of course,
style is important, but not more than content.
Shaun Troedson.
Rachel Meredith Kadel
> was _not_ planned, thus undermining your argument. The fact of the
> matter is, Harrison Ford was down with dysentery. He'd been working
> through his illness, and was downright exhausted and disgusted. They'd
> choreographed a lengthy, complex sword-whip combat sequence, and after
> ten or eleven takes hadn't gotten it right. It was hot, dusty, Ford felt
> like scrape-resistant deposits in the bottom of a chamber-pot. In what
> would have been a fit of pique if he'd had the energy for it, he drew
> the pistol and fired. The stunt man doing the swordplay had the presence
> of mind to "take" the hit, and the scene was so priceless that it got
> left in.
>
> Entirely unplanned, but brilliant.
One morning in a fit of pique,
Sing rickety-tickety-tin,
One morning in a fit of pique
She drowned her father in the creek.
The water tasted bad for a week,
So she had to make do with gin, with gin,
She had to make do with gin.
--Tom Lehrer, "The Irish Ballad"
[I believe above was a reference to this, and if it wasn't, it should
have been. :-)]
Rachel
Cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie. \ Rachel Meredith Kadel
A fish can't whistle, and neither can I. \ Managing Sysop, PHSBBS
Ask me a riddle, and I reply \ rac...@phsbbs.princeton.nj.us
Cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie. --A. A. Milne
If you post a followup, please mail it to me--my newsfeed's flaky.
Damon B. Crumpler
please forgive lack of computer skills:
Mr. pearlman disagreed with my theory that deconstuctionism
is an aspect of postmodernism.
i think that it is an essential part of pm.
postmodernism-
as it has been defined (roughly) here pertains to a rejection
of modernism along with an emphasis on certain specific
aspects of the pertinent field.
deconstructionism, as i see it,
deals with the intimate analysis of particular aspects of any
particular field- i.e., the dcist breaks down the
story(for example) into its basic components (such as
plot, characterization, etc.), and then completely
analyzes one or more of these peices to death.
Now, dcism may just be a critical analysis method, but
i think it can be viewed as a literary method also.
My example of this would be the Dark Knight, where the concept
of Batman is readuced totally to the psychosis, and then
explored from there.
Maybe i'm getting semantics mixed up, or
maybe dcism and pmism are two sides of the same coin.
I also still believe that metafiction is more a pm device than
anything else.
We also have a diagreement about the Player.
First, he said it was a parody. I disagreed, and said
by his standards it was pm.
the player is a satire, which is different from a -parody.
I stand by that.
he stated that "pm is geberally concerned with
history, humor, the nature of story telling,
and how interactive is the author with the audience.
... the key things which make Indiana jones a pm movie is
a serious action movie, which recognizes that, and
makes fun of itself."
Using these criteria, the player is pm.
He goes on to clarify himself by stating that the player
would have to be done in a 1950's style
(NOTE: that was only an example, not a rule, but
i believe he meant examining the same story from
or i should say with a noncontemporary view).
I can see his point, but i have reservations about it.
Can something be considered pm ONLY
if it deals with modern themes/times?
There can be no pmism in contemporary settings.
Granted, the player is not a "pure" pm work, but it
certainly fits the aspect Mr. pearlman described which
i have paraphrased here (in spirit of the original-
i hate computers and cannot control them)
--
We dance around the ring and suppose, but The Secret lies in the
center and knows.(Frost) I know things that have been forgot(Sim)
Knowledge is evil.Infinity means everythings is true.Maximal
chaos= maximal homogenaeity.(me) 4.66920(Feigenbaum) z+Z(2)+c
Andy Pearlman
>Mr. pearlman disagreed with my theory that deconstuctionism
>is an aspect of postmodernism.
>i think that it is an essential part of pm.
>postmodernism-
Take Edward Scissorhands. You have a story based on a fairytale, uses
1950's definition of society and architecture, being invaded by Gothic ideals.
Very PM and extremely little deconstructing going on in the story, if any.
The deconstructionist would take the same fairy tale and would tell you what
made this fairy tale this way.
>the player is a satire, which is different from a -parody.
>I stand by that.
Please look up the words in a dictionary before saying things like that. A
parody broadly mimics an author's style and holds it up to ridicule. A satire
exposes folly through irony. The Player does both of these.
>I can see his point, but i have reservations about it.
>Can something be considered pm ONLY
>if it deals with modern themes/times?
>There can be no pmism in contemporary settings.
There can be pmism in contemporary settings(Cry of Lot 49) The problem with
the Player is that it is satire as a primary goal. A Post-modern work has
more the structure of a fairy tale. Impossible things tend to happen or
at least things that if they happened in reality, you'd blink several times
and say wait a second. The omniscient narrator turns panicked bystander. The
great intellect solves every problem except the insigificant one and renders
his life meaningless. Stories tend to end in mid-frame or loop.
Andy Pearlman
patt...@acf7.nyu.edu
>
>
>
>We also have a diagreement about the Player.
>First, he said it was a parody. I disagreed, and said
>by his standards it was pm.
>the player is a satire, which is different from a -parody.
>I stand by that.
>
> he stated that "pm is geberally concerned with
>history, humor, the nature of story telling,
>and how interactive is the author with the audience.
>a serious action movie, which recognizes that, and
>makes fun of itself."
>
>Using these criteria, the player is pm.
>He goes on to clarify himself by stating that the player
>would have to be done in a 1950's style
>(NOTE: that was only an example, not a rule, but
>i believe he meant examining the same story from
>or i should say with a noncontemporary view).
>
>I can see his point, but i have reservations about it.
>Can something be considered pm ONLY
>if it deals with modern themes/times?
>There can be no pmism in contemporary settings.
>
>Granted, the player is not a "pure" pm work, but it
>certainly fits the aspect Mr. pearlman described which
>i have paraphrased here (in spirit of the original-
>i hate computers and cannot control them)
>
The time period of the piece has no effect on whether it is pm or not. I'd
say the reason that The Player is not pm is that while it is a satire, it
is meant to be a satire on the *reality* of the film business -- the film
has little to do with genres -- UNLESS
(and here I totally reverse myself)
remember the ending of the film, Tim Robbins' conversation in his car with
the screenwriter ("Can you guarantee me that ending?") and him driving up
to his house, there's Greta S. pregnant and the American Flag flying. I
think this is a parody of the fictions employed by Hollywood - every story
needs a happy ending (and not just a happy ending, but one affirming all our
God-given righteous American virtues !! :-) ). The film deals realistically
with Hollywood's manipulations of stories ("Is this going to be funny?") but
it occassionally takes a surreal trip into pm, employing within its own
narrative parodies of the very genres which the characters discussed in
script conferences. So while one could make a case that The Player is
not a PURE pm film (could there be such a thing) I'd argue (and I just
have argued, damnitt!) that pm elements lurk in The Player like vicious
money-mongering oportunists in the White House!!!
I encourage more debate on this (as long as no one pees in my corn flakes ;-))
Ben Patterson
New York University
Mark Vieselmeyer
:
: ....
:
: In short, Modernism was Man seeing himself clearly for the first time
: (as was thought at the time); post-Modernism is Man realizing he can
: never ever see himself clearly, no matter how hard he tries.
postmodernism = cynical modernism ?
- mark
Forman Howes
>
> Org. : University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
> >
> >> Take "Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Raiders" is a post modern movie,
> because
> >> its a movie *about* adventure movies. Remember the scene where Indy is
> >> fighting off about a dozen attackers at once, ...
> >> .... It's one of the biggest laughs in the movie,
> >> and the reason it's so funny is that the film is pointing to its own
> >> absurdity, and to the absurdity of the genre in general - *very* post-
> >> modern!
> >
> >
>
> Ha! I'm reminded of an old Peanuts strip in which Lucy
> finds what she thinks is a rare butterfly on the ground,
> and goes off on a long rant about how it must have
> flown up from South America. After several minutes of
> this Linus takes a close look at the object and exclaims:
> "This isn't a butterfly, it's a potato-chip!"
>
Which reminds me of another Peanuts cartoon. Linus has found a perfectly
spherical piece of wood. He extolls to Charlie Brown the probability of such
an event happening in nature. The years of weathering which would have to
take place. How lucky they were to be able to see and hold the reuslts of
such a rare and exceptional event. Charlie Brown takes one look at the
shperical piece of wood and says it looks like a Croquet ball which has lost
its paint. Does this mean that Charles Shultz is a post-modernist? ;-)
Dan Hartung
Well, of course I was vastly oversimplifying. Try this for an
even more compressed definition:
Modernism asks, "What is Man?"
Post-modernism asks, "What is 'Man'?"
Dan Hartung
No problem. We criticize content here. (At least the polite ones do.)
>Mr. pearlman disagreed with my theory that deconstuctionism
>is an aspect of postmodernism.
>i think that it is an essential part of pm.
Much postmodernism DOES have deconstruction in it, but decon itself
is not an essential element. Remember, postmodern refers to a period
of ideas, not the content themselves, and there are many divergent
theories in the postmodern era.
>postmodernism-
>as it has been defined (roughly) here pertains to a rejection
>of modernism along with an emphasis on certain specific
>aspects of the pertinent field.
>deconstructionism, as i see it,
>deals with the intimate analysis of particular aspects of any
>particular field- i.e., the dcist breaks down the
>story(for example) into its basic components (such as
>plot, characterization, etc.), and then completely
>analyzes one or more of these peices to death.
>Now, dcism may just be a critical analysis method, but
>i think it can be viewed as a literary method also.
The postmodernist sees NO DIFFERENCE between the two. All texts are
critiques of themselves; all critical texts are self-critical as well;
etc. The "to death" aspect is not important; a lot of postmodern
texts are quite dense, however!
>My example of this would be the Dark Knight, where the concept
>of Batman is readuced totally to the psychosis, and then
>explored from there.
Yes, good example.
>Maybe i'm getting semantics mixed up, or
>maybe dcism and pmism are two sides of the same coin.
One is a subset of the other, that's all.
>I also still believe that metafiction is more a pm device than
>anything else.
True.
>We also have a diagreement about the Player.
>First, he said it was a parody. I disagreed, and said
>by his standards it was pm.
>the player is a satire, which is different from a -parody.
>I stand by that.
Satire is more of a literary purpose ("to expose human vices and
propose a corrective") while parody is simply a technique. I think
parody appears here and there in _The Player_ but it is chiefly
a satire.
> he stated that "pm is geberally concerned with
>history, humor, the nature of story telling,
>and how interactive is the author with the audience.
>... the key things which make Indiana jones a pm movie is
>a serious action movie, which recognizes that, and
>makes fun of itself."
>
>Using these criteria, the player is pm.
>He goes on to clarify himself by stating that the player
>would have to be done in a 1950's style
>(NOTE: that was only an example, not a rule, but
>i believe he meant examining the same story from
>or i should say with a noncontemporary view).
I would agree that there are postmodern aspects to _The Player_
but it is not intended to be a strcitly postmodern work. For
a better example of postmodernism look at Robbins' next project,
_Bob Roberts_. A parody (more literally) of political campaign
documentaries, as well as a vicious satire, it makes use of
a number of postmodern devices to make tis points.
>I can see his point, but i have reservations about it.
>Can something be considered pm ONLY
>if it deals with modern themes/times?
>There can be no pmism in contemporary settings.
Hm, not exactly. I think Pearlman's point (not to misconstrue you,
Mr Pearlman!) was that setting can be used in a postmodern way --
by performing a time shift you bring certain things into sharper
contrast by making them "stick out". Imagine a film noir set
in Roman times.
"My name is Samuelis Spadus. A detector by trade, I work the mean
streets of old Pompeii. You know, the city near the volcano. Never
a more vice-ridden and lice-ridden city has been seen on the blue
shores of our fair Mediterranean."
>Granted, the player is not a "pure" pm work, but it
>certainly fits the aspect Mr. pearlman described which
>i have paraphrased here (in spirit of the original-
>i hate computers and cannot control them)
I think you're quite perceptive and are well on the way to a
fuller understanding of postmodernism. Don't be led astray by
more persnickety formal critics -- in my view, pomo is
critical fun. ;-)
Christopher J Carne
>deconstructionism, as i see it,
>deals with the intimate analysis of particular aspects of any
>particular field- i.e., the dcist breaks down the
>story(for example) into its basic components (such as
>plot, characterization, etc.), and then completely
>analyzes one or more of these peices to death.
Hmmm. That sounds more like what the structuralists did.
My reading of Derrida goes something like this.
Language is messy and aporietic.
This messiness is contained by the development of certain reading
practices.
If we then bring a different reading practice to a text we then
see the fixed (or 'closed') nature of the text disappear.
So that (for instance) in 'White Mythology' he attends closely
to the role of methaphor in philosophical texts. By bringing
to the centre a marginalised feature of the text we see how
the text of Western philosophy unravels. It is only by the
marginalisation of such features that closure can be obtained.
In essence, I would say that deconstruction 'is' at heart a
way in which we can read a text closely attending to what
is marginalised (ie the 'other').
This is of course a highly simplified and ludicrously unreflexive
version of Derrida. Moreover, it is a version of Derrida that I
have made to help me in my work as a sociologist of science and
technology (you consider technological artefacts and scientific
facts as texts and go on from there).
I often think that the best way to view PM as with all other
human knowledge production, is anthroplogically. Take a step
back and watch how the protagonists marshall all their forces in
order to ensure the success of their particular interpretive myth
(without of course ignoring the impossibility of that 'step back'
but then that's what reflexive irony's for). But then is that not
a post-modern move itself?
OB Latour Plug
I'd like to point prople towards the work of Bruno Latour (I
should really get a job as Bruno's PR man as I seem to be plugging
him all over the net at the moment). Especially relevant to
discussions of modernity and PM are
'Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern! Steps Towards an Anthropology
of Science' Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Vol 24
No 1 pp145-171
'Nous n'Avons pas Jaimais Ete Modern' La Decouvertment, Paris 1991
[I'm not sure about the status of the translation of this. I've
seen databases with it on but the campus bookshop tells me that
it won't be published tell Jan 94. Go figure]
Chris
SubGenius
>Well, of course I was vastly oversimplifying. Try this for an
>even more compressed definition:
>Modernism asks, "What is Man?"
>Post-modernism asks, "What is 'Man'?"
+-----------------------------------------------SubG------------------------+
So you're saying that postmodernism is just a use/mention distinction?
So Douglas Hofstader is a postmodern writer?
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Francis Muir
Dan Hartung writes...
Well, of course I was vastly oversimplifying. Try
this for an even more compressed definition:
Modernism asks, "What is Man?"
Post-modernism asks, "What is 'Man'?"
So you're saying that postmodernism is just a use/mention
distinction? So Douglas Hofstader is a postmodern writer?
No, by your distinction he would be a 'postmodern' writer.
FLM
Damon B. Crumpler
reading mr. dan hartung's reply to my message, i ask:
Does this mean that Man Eating Cow is a postmodern comic?
Igor Belchinskiy
: >Well, of course I was vastly oversimplifying. Try this for an
: >even more compressed definition:
: >Modernism asks, "What is Man?"
: >Post-modernism asks, "What is 'Man'?"
Compressed questions:
What says "Man is."?
And what says "Is."?
--
Igor Belchinskiy bil.w...@xerox.com (((((())))))
here in hereafter J.D.Salinger :-)
Lawrence C Smith
>Compressed questions:
>What says "Man is."?
>And what says "Is."?
And there, in a nutshell, is the new paradigm for the current
generation of post-relevant movies...
Larry Smith (sm...@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron. Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Gregory Taylor
access has just returned after a company-enforced hiatus.
In article <16...@news.duke.edu> inf...@acpub.duke.edu (Andrew Infante) writes:
>Er, so to those that have posted the non-sequiters,
>THAT is post-modernism?
No, a bunch of us clever grownups are trying to play around with some of the
assumptions as they are shared and understood. The point of the non-sequitUrs
involves the suggestion that the "common-sense" questions about text and
meaning and their easy extractability are a sort of vine and bamboo bridge
stretched across a vast chasm over which the confident Modernist drives in
her broken-down schoolbus full of nitroglycerin. "Sure it'll hold," she
conversationally add, replacing their cup of single-crop coffee in the
Jurassic Park insulating goblet on the dash next to the statue of St. Norbert
(Frye)....
I'm sure it's been said before by the more learned in our midst, but I'll risk
a bit of repetition; as the term implies, postmodernism comes *after* the
set of gentleman's agreements about texts and meanings and readers and the
tools used to make sense of them that is loosely termed "modernism". There's
a bit of problem in that there are arguably a couple of slightly varying
*kinds* of ideas that refer to when we use the term. They're spread out in
time across the century [folks are discussing literary modernism and meaning
one thing, while art critics like Clement Greenberg are talking about using
the same term for painting in a slightly different context and in a slightly
different set of times.] You get the drift of this, I hope. But we still use
the term "modernism" as if it were more or less monolithic, and capitalize
it if we're really interested in sounding [or reading] authoritatively.
In a similar fashion, pomo has some of the same features. One could as easily
answer "*which* postmodernism?" The term has come to refer to a grouping of
people who take issue with any number of the tenets of the "modernisms" out
there. In the interests of banishing their pesky detractors, a good modernist
would seek to characterize pomo as a single "thing" which could be stomped
[kill the queen, the ants scatter in confusion]. This is attractive for some
of the same reasons that it's cool and makes one feel relatively powerful when
speaking of the doctrine of pomo [whatever *that* is....] as a single entity.
I think that both sides of the argument are implicated in this little bit
of larceny.
So how does one try to make sense of it? It would appear that all the folks who
know what's going on spend their time concocting clever japes and razzing
non-pomo types or involved in the chinese-box "criticising the critics" games
that some of us enjoy so much. As the above paragraphs suggest, there isn't,
in my view, a single book to which one could go to make sense of it. Further,
I suspect that some of the original texts will potentially seem a bit, well,
*cryptic* to the normal Joan. I'll suggest a couple of books that I've found to
be of some use or help to me [or little use at all]. They're not all strictly
about "pomo" as a doctrine, but hey.
Two books which seem to me to be helpful because the talk about the *breadth*
of current study and opinion are "Redrawing the Boundaries: the transformation
of English and American Literary Studies" by Stephen Greenblatt and Giles Gunn
[MLA Press] and "Critical Terms for Literary Study" by Frank Lentriccia and
Thomas McLaughlin [University of Chicago]. Lots of little articles about "isms"
by the people who practice them.
On a more philosophical plane, you might want to try Richard Rorty's "Contigency
Irony and Solidarity" (or is is "Irony Contingency and Solidarity?" :) ) [Oxford
or Yale, I forget which]. His work now drives real philosophers into a fury
(he's a sort of "black sheep" of the family of philosophers), but I find it
interesting reading.
Stephen Toulmin's "Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity", like the writing
of Bruno LaTour, are not strictly about the literary meanings of Modernity and
Modernism: rather, they're considerations of the assumptions about the
"objectivity" of science and the legacy of the Enlightenment which we have
bestowed the title of "common sense" upon. LaTour looks at these "rational"
practices as a cultural anthropologist of sorts, while Toulmin the historian
is broadly critical of the Cartesian underpinnings of the Modern age [he posits
a theory of science deriving more frm Montaigne, for example] and the historical
"myths" used to support their ascendency as cultural ideals.
Rorty and Toumin and LaTour might be thought of more as the folks who prefer
to take an axe to the root of the tree rather than shaking it.
If you're really hungry to see a couple of Yurrupean Marxist/post-Marxist boys
put on the rubber Godzilla suits and stomp around on this paper model of the
city of PostModernism [that the folks at the Toyo studios fervently hope you'll
believe is the *real* city], you could take a run at Terry Eagleton or Jurgen
Habermas' books on the subject. Privately, I think that they're royally pissed
off that those things that follow modernism no longer would hold to a single
dominant cultural paradigm [what Richard Rorty calls "a final vocabulary"];
the idea was the *their* paradigm was supposed to be on top of the totem pole
next :-). They're both well written and well argued.
Finally, one of the seminal theoretical texts on postmodernism is Lyotard's
"The Postmodern Condition", from the University of Minnesota Press. It's rough
sledding, but it's the real stuff. Also, they got Frederic Jameson [beeg Marxist
critic] to write the foreward to the text. Unsurprisingly, Jameson takes the
opportunity to try to sandbag the project before you actually have a chance to
*read* the text. Hmmm. He's got another "Godzilla Suit" volume out too. The
title might end with "....the logic of late Capitalism" (or is that Habermas?).
That should hold you for a while.
Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom [whoops, co-optation!]
sometimes a Wombat
>
> So that (for instance) in 'White Mythology' he attends closely
> to the role of methaphor in philosophical texts. By bringing
> to the centre a marginalised feature of the text we see how
> the text of Western philosophy unravels. It is only by the
> marginalisation of such features that closure can be obtained.
The more I hear these words batted about in discussions about
deconstruction, the more I'm convinced they are buzz-words that can
mean what that particular person (or more specifically critic)
wants them to mean.
I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
for writers.
the ignoring it until then Mr. E-----
--
L...@physics.arizona.edu \ In the deserts of the heart
sometimes a Wombat \ Let the healing fountains start -- Auden
Christopher J Carne
>In a post up above, Christop...@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) wrote:
>>
>> So that (for instance) in 'White Mythology' he attends closely
>> to the role of methaphor in philosophical texts. By bringing
>> to the centre a marginalised feature of the text we see how
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> the text of Western philosophy unravels. It is only by the
> ^^^^^^
>> marginalisation of such features that closure can be obtained.
> ^^^^^
>The more I hear these words batted about in discussions about
>deconstruction, the more I'm convinced they are buzz-words that can
>mean what that particular person (or more specifically critic)
>wants them to mean.
Like the term deconstruction, as evinced time and again over this
thread.
'Marginalised' - to make marginal, perfectly good demotic English.
'Unravel' used figuratively. Again perfectly clear use of the word
I should have thought. Often used by dcists to suggest the woven
or text-ile nature of writing.
'Closure' OK so this is a jargon word but its difficult
to gloss sucessfully. The best I can do is to suggest that
closure is the selecting out of one particular set of meanings out
of the several made available by a text.
>
>I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
>for writers.
Here's a coherent answer. It's not. Why would anyone expect
to be?
>
> the ignoring it until then Mr. E-----
Uh. Does this mean you've not actually read any Derrida then?
'I hate to read a book before I review it. It predjudices one so'
(Rev Sydney Smith)
Regards,
Chris
Brook Conner
just adding my 2cents to help clarify things for others -- Brook)
**> On Mon, 21 Jun 1993 11:04:13 GMT, Christop...@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) said:
Christopher> In article <1993Jun17....@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> l...@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
>In a post up above, Christop...@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) wrote:
>>
>> So that (for instance) in 'White Mythology' he attends closely
>> to the role of methaphor in philosophical texts. By bringing
>> to the centre a marginalised feature of the text we see how
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> the text of Western philosophy unravels. It is only by the
> ^^^^^^
>> marginalisation of such features that closure can be obtained.
> ^^^^^
>The more I hear these words batted about in discussions about
>deconstruction, the more I'm convinced they are buzz-words that can
>mean what that particular person (or more specifically critic)
>wants them to mean.
Christopher> Like the term deconstruction, as evinced time and again over this
Christopher> thread.
Christopher> 'Marginalised' - to make marginal, perfectly good demotic English.
On this term "marginalised": Christopher originally said "by bringing
to the centre a marginalised feature of the text." One of the
principal features of deconstruction as I've seen it applied is its
tendency to point out all the implicit assumptions in a book (or text,
as you prefer). Rather than letting these assumptions pass by in the
margin, deconstruction makes the most of them, presumably enlightening
the critic about the assumptions of the author.
Christopher> 'Unravel' used figuratively. Again perfectly clear use of the word
Christopher> I should have thought. Often used by dcists to suggest the woven
Christopher> or text-ile nature of writing.
This so-called text-ile (bad pun, I know) nature of text is one of the
points Derrida makes in "Dissemination" --- no text is self-contained.
You begin any novel with a set of assumptions and previous knowledge.
Your reading experience consists largely of taking those assumptions
and relating them (weaving them into) the book you are reading.
Christopher> 'Closure' OK so this is a jargon word but its difficult
Christopher> to gloss sucessfully. The best I can do is to suggest that
Christopher> closure is the selecting out of one particular set of meanings out
Christopher> of the several made available by a text.
I would have suggested "closure" as being what you get when you get to
the end of a good book -- the satisfaction that it is finished, that
all is done, and everything is wrapped up in a neat package.
Deconstruction would tend to suggest that such closure is an illusion:
when you get to the last page of a book, all it has done is add some
stuff to the set of assumptions you had when you started it. When you
pick up a new book, these new assumptions can be some of the
assumptions you try to weave into the new book.
Hypertext fiction makes such closure well-nigh impossible. A text is
done when you feel like it --- there is no last page to reach.
>I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
>for writers.
Christopher> Here's a coherent answer. It's not. Why would anyone expect
Christopher> to be?
Here's another coherent answer. Deconstructing one's own text can
help one learn about one's own assumptions. This is more clearly of
immediate use in informational texts, where leaving out an assumption
(especially in such things as mathematics) can trip you up. But even
in fiction, recognition of your own assumptions can give you a deeper
and more thorough control over what you put in your text.
Brook
--
Klacktoveedsedstene
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
>for writers.
It probably isn't. (Speaking as someone who writes for a living.)
What it *is* is
1) an awful lot of fun, if you like mental labyrinths.
2) an interesting way of looking *REALLY*CLOSELY* at "texts" (a nice generic
term since it includes "books" and "stories" and "poems" and "essays" and
God wot all else), *AS* texts -- that is, artifices.
For me as a working writer, I suppose the only real benefit it has offered me
has been an indirect flow-out of the latter; it has made me more careful what
I write.
I always told Cousin Emmit all a them books was no good for
him, so I ain't particular surprised when his head blows up. I
just figure he tried to stuff maybe one book too much in there
and the pressure bust his skull. Or maybe it's what he reads.
It's a real awful mess anyhow. Pinky-gray spongey stuff all
over where he called his library even though it ain't no more
than a big jam closet as he put books on the shelf of and stuck
in an Edison light. And it smells something turble...
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.
Chris Lott
> In a post up above, Christop...@brunel.ac.uk (Christopher J Carne) wrote:
>>
>> So that (for instance) in 'White Mythology' he attends closely
>> to the role of methaphor in philosophical texts. By bringing
>> to the centre a marginalised feature of the text we see how
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> the text of Western philosophy unravels. It is only by the
> ^^^^^^
>> marginalisation of such features that closure can be obtained.
> ^^^^^
> The more I hear these words batted about in discussions about
> deconstruction, the more I'm convinced they are buzz-words that can
> mean what that particular person (or more specifically critic)
> wants them to mean.
>
> I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
> for writers.
>
> the ignoring it until then Mr. E-----
It's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be an interesting tool for
critics...
--
chris
poet and pauper
fn...@aurora.alaska.edu
-- The scariest thing to a critic is an author who dares to think --
-- he understands his own work --
sometimes a Wombat
> l...@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
> >
> > I have yet to get a coherent answer of how dcism is useful as a tool
> > for writers.
>
> critics...
Ah, but there is criticism that is useful to me as a writer, at least,
by showing me how other, better writers have put together their works.
And if deconstruction is intended to be just a tool for critics, why
should ANYone who isnt' a critic care about it at all?
the blindly groping for the second cuppa Mr. E-----
Arlyn Newcomb
> And if deconstruction is intended to be just a tool for critics, why
> should ANYone who isnt' a critic care about it at all?
Indeed. That _is_ the question, isn't it? >;-)
--
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
+ aa...@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU | Subtle is the Lord, but He is not +
+ I speak only for myself. | malicious. --Albert Einstein +
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Fiona Webster
>And if deconstruction is intended to be just a tool for critics, why
Because it's *fun* to read! Ta-da! Seriously, I would never have read
one word of litcrit (not being a humanities major, I could've avoided it
entirely), were it not very entertaining. At the risk of being
salacious, I'll put it this way: other people's tools are my playthings.
--Fiona
Christopher J Carne
>l...@soliton.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>> And if deconstruction is intended to be just a tool for critics, why
>> should ANYone who isnt' a critic care about it at all?
>
>Indeed. That _is_ the question, isn't it? >;-)
>
Deconstruction is not 'just a tool for critics'. In fact in my view
dconstruction is at its least interesting when it is being used as
such (eg in the writings of the Yale school). If it 'is' anything
then it is a philosophy of language. This is to oversimplify of course,
but at least it gets us away from considering dcostructionism as a
primarily 'literary' activity. For me the interest in Derrida's work
lies more in what he has to say about writing (in general) and less
in what he has to say about any individual text.
One doesn't look to Wittgenstein for writing tips, why then would
you look to Derrida? Except in as much that Derrida (like Wittgenstein)
is a pretty fine prose stylist.
BTW Who is it that 'intends' dconstruction as 'just a tool for
critics'?
CHRIS