/lit/ - Literature

>>6145844

If by "literature" you mean "novels" (as most of you cretins do) then modernism was the end point. Everything "pomo" has done with novels since is just empty cycling and repetition trying to hide the corpse of the dead, ireelevant artform.

>>6145844
no, far from it. postmodernism has been on its way out for decades now. last yelps of pomo have been pynchon's books, infinite jest, house of leaves, etc.

if you look at the literary novels that are both critically acclaimed and popular over the last 10 or 15 years these features are apparently common:

- straightforward chronology
- single voice/narration, minimal tinkering with style
- emotionally raw/naive themes like love--eros or agape, artistic ambition, heroism
- story is left in its own terms and universe. i mean that pomo things like breaking the fourth wall and metafiction are not used.

novels that exemplify this zeitgeist: McCarthy's The Road. chronology is more or less straight with a few flashbacks. theme is the redemptive power of love between father and son. minimal, and minimalistic in style relative to the bombastic maximalism of pomo a la pynchon and gaddis. the book's style/voice is singular, rather than multiple or fragmented. Robinson's Gilead is also a good example in this vein.

as i said, notice the above things are antithetical, if not nearly antithetical to postmodernist motifs like
- circular, broken, or jumping forward and back in time of the plot
- multiple character POV, polystylism
- emotionally distant/cynical themes like depression, alienation, failure, irony, meaninglessness
- metafiction, breaking the fourth wall

the present era you'll notice is just as big a departure from modernism

Postmodernism as it existed from the '60s-'80s is long gone already. Keep up.

>>6145967
>>6145967

I like your argument.

I've seen The Road described as post-postmodernism, which seems to be just taking the fucking piss, frankly.

I'm not into this "new sincerity" label, but it does seem that there's a whole new generation of novelists who seem to be moving away from the vacuous posturing of the "pomo" novelists and trying to define a new voice.

I think it's a kind of new confessionalism, rather than sincerity, and it comes out of the environment where younger writers have grown up- Twitter, smartphones and here - and they're attempting to distill this worldview wehere everything, including pictures of the beans on toast you had for tea, is immediately public, and everything about a person is up for grabs.

I'm an oldfag, and I'm personally tired of the postmodern circus, and I'm cautiously optimistic that this current shitty generation is gradually growing in confidence. We need a new assault on the tired old men of literature.

>>6145844
No because Descartes already did it and it gets you nowhere really

>>6145995
note i never said 'sincerity,' let alone commit to the 'new sincerity' tag. for some reason this phrase provokes the rage of many here, even if they would agree with what i've laid out.

>confessionalism

i'd describe the present popular mode of poetry as confessional, but not novels. for one, as i mentioned, many of the characters of recent novels have been heroic, even mythic. two, the author-as-protagonist has also been uncommon in the literary novels i have in mind. Proulx, Jin, Chabon, and Erdrich are all good examples here.

i don't disagree that the present youth culture is one of 'selfie,' taking pics of your food, putting up interests and hobbies on a profile, but i have yet to see this in a novelized form, let alone the defining characteristic of a generation of writers. if anything, the present roster of authors i have mentioned so far are writing more intensively researched historical novels than any other generation i can think of. that is nearly the opposite of broadcasting every details of your consumption.

I don't think postmodernism is the problem. I think whatever comes next is going to be really scary though

>>6145967
So in other words New Sincerity.

>>6145848
What else is there in literature? Poetry is even more dead.

Fuck people

Novels that concern themselves with the current 'fads' and 'fancies' and try dissect these into concepts and voices and statements are always fucking shit books

Throughout history, the classics are ones that transcend time, they are not limited to the era they were written, they are relate-able, almost regardless of the time of their conception

Novels based around 'voices' or 'warnings' or 'social commentary' have always been, and always will be, SHIT.

Sure, classics are labelled 'victorian', 'romantic', 'modernist' etc, but at the end of the day, they might be conducive and representative of a literature 'movement' or 'era, but they transcend these

Great writers try and change literary courses, not by tackling the trials and tribulations of their days, but by the literary output

>>6147890
I should clarify a certain part since I wrote it very quickly

>'social commentary'

There are great works and novelists and poets who do base their work around social commentary. But the commentary is intertwined with the writing, with the literary output.
The writing does not falter because for the writer, the quality of the writing is their art.

They are artists, NOT social commentators, but a lot of the time, people seem to think these two should be correlated.
If an artist brings forth questions that social commentators can ask and attempt to answer, that's all well and good. But it is not the artist's role to attempt to define and answer these, at least not in their artwork. Because if they do, the integrity and quality of the art always falters.

>>6146057
Lel. Cartesian deconstruction was criminally disingenuous

>>6145844
>Is postmodernism the logical end of literature

modernism and postmodernism are the deadends of literature. Intellectual circlejerking. Literature will evolve and create new ways the moment all these "i am so postmodern" wannabe wankers die.
You cant break new grounds if you dont write about the story and it emotions but about being postmodern.

>>6147823
why?

>>6145844
Well, it certainly isn't that good in my opinion, but I wouldn't understand how a literary trend has the power to end all literature...

>>6149471
Once you admit that life has no meaning, in Modernism, and then you admit that society is useless, in Postmodernism, there's nothing left to write about. The only thing left is to react to Modernism and Postmodernism and just start venerating the past. Once you start venerating the past, society, and by extension literature, stagnates.

What is today "postmodernism" will be tomorrow's norm, what is "postmodernism" tomorrow will be the norm on the following day, at the rising of the sun -- no later, like clockwork.

Notice the quotation marks.

>>6146137
>but i have yet to see this in a novelized form

It seems to be what Tao Lin and his muumuu cronies are up to.

Some older writers like Palahniuk are also trying to work in this kind of confessional way.

The difference between the "New Sincerity" and old school Confessionalism is that the new writing maintains some of the archness and self-awareness of postmodernism, so you have writers like Marie calloway who're producing this seemingly sincere and honest confessional about their sex life or whatever, but you're always acutely aware that the whole exercise, however seemingly sincere, is actually a creation. She's fucking all these guys with the idea that it'll make a book, and from the ad on craigslist to the final photo of her with spunk on her face, the whole thing is a confection, designed and created to be written about.

It's a kind of post-confessional sincerity.

I dunno, something like that anyway. I don't especially like Tao Lin or Calloway, but I'd rather read their drivel than the latest piece of self-indulgent shit by Franzen or Vollmer or Martin fucking Amis or whoever.

>>6149767

>>6149914

I'm not sure what this is supposed to refer to.