Defining Literary Postmodernism for the Twenty-First Century

Matthias Stephan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9783030156930
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Modern Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

This bookpresents a definition of literary postmodernism, using detective and science fictions as a frame.Through an exploration of both prior theoretical approaches, and indicators through characteristics of postmodernist fiction, this book identifies a structural framework to both understand and apply the lessons of postmodernism for the next generation. Within a growing consensus that the postmodern era has passed, this book examines the different conceptions of postmodernism and posits a meaningful definition, one which can provide the foundation for future literary expression. This theory is then applied to genre fiction, particularly detective fiction and science fiction, demonstrating that postmodernism is found in the structure, rather than questions posed about literary expression. Finally, Matthias Stephan considers post-postmodern movements, and how they can be expressed given this definition of literary postmodernism, moving forward to the twenty-first century.

© The Author(s) 2019

Matthias StephanDefining Literary Postmodernism for the Twenty-First Centuryhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15693-0_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Matthias Stephan¹

(1)

Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark

End Abstract

We are at the end of postmodernism. So it has been argued for the past 20 years (at least), since a conference held in Stuttgart in 1991 with the title The End of Postmodernism: New Directions. Stephen Burn published a book on a contemporary writer, Jonathan Franzen at the End of Postmodernism (2008), which argues that certain works around the end of the twentieth century contain aspects that moved, in some sense, beyond that of postmodernism. Others have argued that postmodernism has ‘died’¹ or has been passed over (or superseded). Neil Brooks and Josh Toth edited a volume which presides over its wake, The Mourning After: Attending the Wake of Postmodernism (2007). Even Brian McHale, one of literary postmodernism’s prime theorists, wrote an article in 2007 entitled “What Was Postmodernism?” the title of which was taken directly from John Frow’s article of the same name from 1997. 2018 saw a series of panels at the European Society for the Study of English conference considering ‘Transcending the Postmodern’ and looking for terms for its replacement. However, it seems, there has been no definitive definition of what postmodernism is (or was). Yet, in order to assert that we are at the end of ‘pomo,’ it seems we need to know what precisely we are at the end of (and how we would determine that this is, or was, the end). It is time to go back and look for a definition.

The need for this definition is also found in (postmodern) literature itself. In decrying the death of postmodernism, or the end of the period, many of these works are looking for the ‘next thing.’ McHale, tellingly, quotes Raymond Federman’s novel Aunt Rachel’s Fur, which has a character who asks that very question:

It was sad to see postmodernism disappear before we could explain it, I kind of liked postmodernism, I was happy in the postmodern condition, as happy if not happier than in the previous condition, I don’t remember what that was called but I was glad to get out of it, and now here we are again faced with a dilemma, what shall we call this new thing towards which we are going, this new thing I haven’t seen yet, did you see it Gaston, what can we call it, postpostmodernism seems a bit too clumsy, and popomomo not serious enough. (Federman 2001, 245)

One of the things that Federman presents here is the idea that postmodernism was never fully explained, and yet, at the same time, that there is a need to move beyond, to look ‘post-’ postmodernism to another era, which has been (as was postmodernism) called many things but which seems to be concentrating (sadly enough) on the term of postpostmodernism.

The idea of using the prefix post-, for a second time, not only makes the phrase seem ridiculous but also brings up many of the same problems that arose with the original use of the term postmodernism (Federman was a proponent of surfiction, e.g. which did not catch on). Jean-François Lyotard elucidated a number of the problems with the idea of post-,² explaining issues that the prefix carries in a number of its iterations. First, it contains a chronological connotation, “the sense of a simple succession, a diachronic sequence of periods in which each one is clearly identifiable” (Lyotard 1992, 76).³ Second, there is an implication of the end (e.g. of history, or the ‘modern project’). And, finally, there is the sense of the Greek term ana-, meaning back or against (a reaction against modernism, in which we have reached a point ‘beyond’ or ‘above’ from which we can gain insight upon looking back, representing a break, spatially, between modernism and its successor). The multiple interpretations of the prefix leave the concept ambiguous, and this compounded issues that were not consistent with iterations of postmodern theory, exacerbating concepts like periodization and direct parallels with the modernist project, while simultaneously adding a taint of decadence. Scholars of the postmodern have had to grapple with all three of these, as well as many other definitions, in attempting to understand the mode. Frow’s text is telling in this regard, as it asserts the temporal aspect of postmodernism, claiming that “the paradoxical result of this is that, since this ‘post-’ must be a real alternative to modernism, it must be based upon a different temporality: not that of novation but that of stasis. It must be the end of history” (Frow 1997, 141, original emphasis). For Frow, as in the explanation by Lyotard, one aspect of the term post- relates specifically to the chronological sequence, which underscores the oft-cited need for dates of the beginning and the end of postmodernism (McHale puts the start in 1966 [‘year zero’] and notes that Federman posits December 22, 1989, as the time of death, coinciding with the passing of Samuel Beckett [McHale 2007, 3, 1]).Yet, the very ambiguity of meaning surrounding the idea of post- carries over to the rest of the concept of postmodernism. This term has been evoked countless times and with seemingly as many different underlying definitions in mind. In the Arts section of the New York Times, in 1997, Richard Rorty evoked postmodernism as an idea which was losing altitude⁴:

It’s one of these terms that has been used so much that nobody has the foggiest idea what it means. It means one thing in philosophy, another thing in architecture and nothing in literature. It would be nice to get rid of it. It isn’t exactly an idea; it’s a word that pretends to stand for an idea. Or maybe the idea that one ought to get rid of is that there is any need to get beyond modernity.

Rorty argues that the term has, essentially, no meaning (especially as a literary concept) and only seems to stand for something substantial. Terry Eagleton, similarly, in The Illusions of Postmodernism, argues that “postmodernism is such a portmanteau phenomenon that anything you assert of one piece of it is almost bound to be untrue of another” (Eagleton 1996, viii). Thus, neither of these scholars (who represent examples of both proponents and critics of postmodernism) would agree that postmodernism has been convincingly defined, and they are among the many scholars who contend that it resists definition.

Burn, in his book on Jonathan Franzen, attempts to define the ‘new thing,’ postpostmodernism and, in so doing, in his opening chapter ‘Mapping the Territory,’ lays out the end of postmodernism based on author reactions, changing focuses in contemporary literature, and chronology (in the 1990s) and then posits a tentative definition of postpostmodernism which both elaborates on the uncertainty of the new definition and is based on the definition of postmodernism in the first place, which he presents as already considered uncertain. “Obviously the haphazard and conflicting deployment of the term already suggests that it will be no more precise than its predecessor, postmodernism. It’s hard to feel good about the explanatory value of a term whose usage collapses the differences between such different writers and contexts” (Burn 2008, 18). In positing his definition, he resorts to a similar structure to that of Ihab Hassan, in his widely published article “Toward a Concept of Postmodernism.” Hassan’s article consists of a list of tentative definitions posited at the beginning of (or at least in the middle of) the postmodern period and first published in 1982, which is relatively late if accepting McHale and Federman’s dates. Yet, Hassan discusses the definition of postmodernism as too early to finalize as he is writing in “its relative youth, indeed brash adolescence” (Hassan 1987, 87). As such, it is an interesting selection of a model to follow, as Burn describes postmodernism as both having a fixed set of characteristics and a nearly similarly fixed contradictory status, thus reifying the uncertainty and caveats of Hassan’s attempt at a definition of postmodernism, even while posing his own tentative definition of postpostmodernism.

So, while it is perhaps too early to definitively define the new thing, postpostmodernism, I argue that it is now that we both have the perspective and need to define postmodernism. This book proposes to do just that, providing a reductive definition for postmodernism and drawing specifically on examples of literary postmodernism to elucidate the definition, one which can then be extrapolated to other fields as a model for how the postmodern consciousness is organized. So, what is literary postmodernism, after all?⁵

Literary Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a popular term, but has historically proven a difficult concept to decisively define. McHale, in Postmodernist Fiction, attempts to address this concern by applying the conceptual tool of the ‘dominant,’ the focusing component of a work. He claims that postmodernism can be understood in opposition to modernism because the dominant of such fiction changes from epistemological to ontological (McHale 1987, 9–10). To that end, he defines the epistemological as dealing with questions of knowledge (what do we know? how do we know it?) and ontological as questions of being (who are we? what world do we occupy?), usi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• Part I. Defining Postmodernism
• Part II. Postmodernism in Praxis
• Back Matter