/lit/ - Literature

I'd say "postmodernism" as a philosophical tendency is, for us, (as Hegel says of art) a thing of the past; for the simple reason that it is outmoded, that any comfortable position will elicit its philosophical exigencies to be critiqued, overcome, or simply moved on to something newer. (Ironically, this betrays a faithfulness to a dynamism, an experimentation or care for novelty that is at the heart of Lyotard's understanding of the postmodern - as part of the modern - albeit more superficially, more about the new - and, furthermore, we aren't talking about Lyotard's idea proper, for as we know he is one of the sole Frenchies to affirm or entertain the term; but instead of flat-out denying the existence of a "true" postmodernism because there never was a self-described movement of that name (something similar could be said for its conflation poststructuralism), we must affirm that - through usage - one can give meaning to a postmodernism, even a philosophical one.) Of course, who are the real postmodernists? Fourth-rate academic bootlickers no one has heard of. And here one may ascertain the gap between the foremost thinkers and the safe 20-year delay of college teaching; hence why you may still get your watered-down Americanized Derrida in your literary theory 101 class - but this is rather irrelevant. Continental philosophy has more or less moved on from this, even if it is still tarrying with the thinkers of '60s France (here Deleuze stands out as receiving less the clichéd postmodernism label than Fouderritard, owing perhaps to his later peak in the Anglo-Sakkkson reception), albeit beyond the characteristically postmodern reading (does anyone still care about signifiers?); one need only mention your OOO, spec realism, accelerationism, and so forth. The fashions change, superficially put.

As for postmodern literature (or architecture, for that wacky manner), has this had anything to do with the thought mentioned above? By association, by more comparative studies in the humanities, we may grant it. It's an easy pairing, one would think after all. But let's not go too far. Now, as has already been said, this too may be démodé, by today's standards of LitErARy fICtiOn -

How important is the author's original intention? Can a text live on (and change) after the author publishes it? Is there difference in repetition?

bonus: Is desire defined as anything other than an opposition or extension of lack fucking stupid?

>The history of philosophy has always been the agent of power in philosophy, and even in thought. It has played the repressors role: how can you think without having read Plato, Descartes, Kant and Heidegger, and so-and-so's book about them? A formidable school of intimidation which manufactures specialists in thought - but which also makes those who stay outside conform all the more to this specialism which they despise. An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking. (D 13)