/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4251780]

>"but anon, the postmodern period is over!"

[« 零 » !vAFhebe0D6!!cLIbuDbY2e6 No.4251794]

IT IS OVER.

WE ARE LIVING IN METAMODERN TIMES.

METAMODERNISM COMPRISES "NEW SINCERITY", POSTIRONY, ET AL.

[Anonymous No.4251804]

>>4251794
>people who think this are out there

[Anonymous No.4251819]

>>4251794
>IT IS OVER.

IS IT "OVER"? OR...

[Anonymous No.4251843]

>>4251819

[Anonymous No.4251847]

>>4251794
>the material conditions are the same
>the fundamental worldview is the same
>there's a minor new art movement that's so fundamentally postmodern it's amazing people can say it with a straight face

[Anonymous No.4251866]

>>4251780
i wish

it's getting pretty boring

[Anonymous No.4251868]

>>4251780
My real favorites are the "postmodernism will never end" people.

[Anonymous No.4251869]

>>4251794

[Anonymous No.4251870]

>>4251794
I AGREE WITH THIS

TAO LIN WILL NEVER BE A SOUTHERN AMERICAN POST-MODERN AUTHOR AND AS SUCH CAN NEVER TRULY BE A SOUTHERN AMERICAN POST-MODERN AUTHOR

>Born July 2, 1983 (age 30)
>Alexandria, Virginia
>WHERE YA GOIN BOY
>POST-MODERNISM AIN'T HEARD YA SQUEAL LIKE A PIGGY YET

[Anonymous No.4251889]

>>4251866
any year now I swear
you'll know it when it happens

[Anonymous No.4252135]

hopefully whatever gay trend comes next at least doesnt have "modern" in the name, sheesh.

[Anonymous No.4252138]

The ironic period of postmodernism is over.

>but what does that mean?

Example: Character gives a heartfelt speech, the sincerity of which is then deflated by the author's self-awareness that it sounds mushy or sentimental, and so the scene is humorous rather than sincere.

This explains DFW's move from DeLillo/Barth to Carver

[dsdayf subtle !ocBgWIqjG2 No.4252338]

>>4252138
bring on the duple-posts, the coolest of the strudels has got to go, toaster or composter, who really boasts when it's over, said and done? the hungriest ones lunge forth, so never to go not known. the holiest go home and hone their domepieces. for every overblown feast, there's an orphan released into the streets. and so it may be, whether these free-feeling elite turn a cheek is a bargain you can't beat, as long as you pick the west fence, or the seventh repentance of a war veteran. all the best, from your friend,

-dsdayf subtle

[Anonymous No.4252383]

We can do anything with literature now. It's not proper to speak of a collective, homogeneous 'movement' or 'era'. There are only loose clutters of individuals exploring that total freedom in similar ways.

[Anonymous No.4252425]

>>4252383
ugh.
We strive to express the unconcious in ways that are not apparent.
When previous works are analyzed we can see the trends throughout history that characterized particular time periods. This demonstates itself in modernism, post-modernism, realism, etc. They're all factors of time and place simply because they're a creation of man.
Stop it, guys, with the god complex: you're not free from time or space or culture or the person living next door to you any more than Ezra Pound or Charles Dickens was.

[Anonymous No.4252432]

>>4252425
Same guy.
You're all Burkehartians who think that you've escaped the trap of every other human. This is not a renaissance, we do not live at the peak of a whiggish history, but instead are a piece of the same struggle to understand ourselves and the world.

[Anonymous No.4252438]

>>4252425

All major literary 'movements' have been characterised by advances in formal liberty. It's not a question of incidental, age-specific appurtenances which are necessarily translated into our fiction, but of meaningful changes in the dominant mode of expression. Our encyclopaedic knowledge of history, philosophy and culture allows us to 'put on' the exterior semblance of any age and our exhaustive exploration of formal potentialities has made our literary arsenal complete. There are no new forms to discover - no 'epic', no 'ode', no 'sonnet' to be found. We have a complete toolbox.

This is our blessing. This self-aggrandising, anachronistic search for something 'beyond the post-modern' is fundamentally confused for imagining it to be a curse.

[Anonymous No.4252440]

>>4251794
tfw you're everything wrong with postmodernity

[Anonymous No.4252457]

>>4252438
You're trolling, right?
Do you think that Keats, returning to the Petrarchan sonnet, thought that his encyclopedic knowledge of antiquity allowed him to move freely through time?
What about Dante, with his amalgamation of Latin and Italian? Creating the newest method of expression, unsurpassable by others?
Further, still, did Cicero think that his revision of Plato's dream at the end of the Republic was a melding of contemporary and past ideals to create a more pure version of truth?
The answer is yes, they all did. Just like we do.
You're a self-inflated child if you think that your knowledge and existence is anymore brilliant than our ancestors. We're not growing towards liberality, we're running the same track, over and over and over.

[Anonymous No.4252459]

>>4252438
>post-modernism is the end of history

Keep telling yourself that anon...

[Anonymous No.4252464]

what about the things the character of taipei says to his mother regarding his drugs use and why she shouldn´t interfere with it? There is nothing in the text that seem to suggest that his reasoning doesn´t really makes sense and that it´s just an excuse to keep doing drugs, but I know that line of thinking so I actually found that passage really ironic. Is this what people call post-irony?

[Anonymous No.4253120]

>>4252464
Thanks for ruining the thread, jackass.

[Anonymous No.4253126]

>implying post-modernism isn't just a post-teenage regressive angst syndrome of pseudo-philosophers who become emotionally unstable in the face of analytic positivism

[Anonymous No.4253135]

>>4253126
>a post-teenage regressive angst syndrome of pseudo-philosophers

there are people who actually type like this

[Anonymous No.4253140]

>>4253135
Problem, subjectivist?

Or are my ontologically sound, empirically testing axioms too much for your solipsitic mind to handle?

[Anonymous No.4253143]

>>4253140
>Or are my ontologically sound, empirically testing axioms too much for your solipsitic mind to handle?

you are a living stereotype

[Anonymous No.4253150]

>>4253126
>imply post-modernism isn't the symptom of liberal democratic capitalism's decline
>implying analytic philosophy is good at all, let alone the endpoint of human thought

[Anonymous No.4253154]

>>4253143
I'd like to ask how long it took you to put down you're copy of "Being and Time" to write that astounding rebuttal.

But, could you even define it?

[Anonymous No.4253158]

>>4253150
>implying you know shit about analytic philosphy

[Anonymous No.4253161]

>>4253150
>implying democracy and capitalism can co-exist

[Anonymous No.4253163]

>>4253154

lol wtf r u talking about?

>thinking that name dropping books makes you sound smart

[Anonymous No.4253167]

>>4253163
It's not my fault your not patrician enough to understand what I'm saying.

Perhaps you should go back to analyzing the metaphysics of Dr. Seuss.

[Anonymous No.4253169]

>>4253167
get your friggin you're's straight, pleb

[Anonymous No.4253172]

>>4253169
I am not bound by the standards of plebeian grammer. To ascend to the highest levels of knowledge, one must free themselves from the grammotological prejudices inflicted on us by society.

[Anonymous No.4253176]

>>4253167
>It's not my fault your not patrician enough to understand what I'm saying.

and u called me a solipsist lol

>your

[Anonymous No.4253185]

>>4253172
i'm all for bending rules in the name of poetic license but you've got NO EXCUSE. and what about spelling, dweeb, it's GRAMMAR. AR. AR AR LIKE NELLY - COUNTRY GRAMMAR REMEMBER PLEB-BUTT? man u a fool big time. word up.

[Anonymous No.4253187]

>>4253172
>I am not bound by the standards of plebeian grammer.

/lit/ ladies and gentlemen

[Anonymous No.4253193]

>>4253185
You seem to be getting needlessly upset. How you managed to come to some "Objective truth" on what is meant to be spelt as which, is only evidence of your immense indoctrination at the hands of the cultural tyrants who rule you.

[Anonymous No.4253194]

>>4253193
>is only evidence of your immense indoctrination at the hands of the cultural tyrants who rule you.

[Anonymous No.4253196]

Postmodernism gave way to genre fiction. The future of literature is wank fantasies for teenagers, forever.

[Anonymous No.4253198]

>>4253194
?rebutting with an imago macro eh?

?Do the laws of formal Logic escape you yet again:?

[Anonymous No.4253202]

>>4253198
>criticizing the notion of "Objective truth"
>invoking 'laws of formal logic' in your next post

[Anonymous No.4253205]

>>4252138
how is that any different from Gabriel's speech in James Joyce's the Dead?

[Anonymous No.4253207]

>>4253202
Only a fool would think the two were mutually inclusive

[Anonymous No.4253209]

>>4253196
>The future of literature is wank fantasies for teenagers, forever.

no, the current age will pass.

[Anonymous No.4253216]

>>4253207
Only a fool would think they weren't

[Anonymous No.4253217]

>>4253193
yea lets all just go WILLY-NILLY and SPELL SH*T WRONG because META-MODERN IDEALS suggest it is of NO CONSEQUENCE. gee, SPELT, do you write of HULLED WHEAT? NO. is it PURPOSEFUL WORDPLAY? NO. so you just PROVE YOURSELF AN IGNORANT GENRE-JOCKEY LOSING LOTTERY TICKET-POCKET GREASEJEANS. sheesh.

[Anonymous No.4253226]

>>4253216
Prove it

>>4253217
Define "Wrong"

[Anonymous No.4253231]

>>4253217
#shotsfired
#whoa

[Anonymous No.4253242]

>>4253209
to something worse

[Anonymous No.4253246]

>>4253226
you started the line of inquiry, so please, after you: why aren't "Objective truth" and "laws of formal logic" mutually inclusive?

[Anonymous No.4253295]

>>4251794
just curious: why do you write this way? Is it to draw attention to your posts? Is it to set yourself apart?

[Anonymous No.4254353]

>>4253126
>analytic positivism
>any positivism at all
Get that stupid shit out of here.

[Anonymous No.4254358]

>>4253295
He's said it's for aesthetic reasons and because "that is how letters should be".

[Anonymous No.4254367]

>>4253295
Because he's committed to the gimmick. That's the only reason. If he stops now, he knows no one will care that he ever did it, and that's kind of embarrassing. So he lies to himself that continuing it is more interesting, and that he's some kind of local character on /lit/, which has no character.

It's why SomethingAwful banned gimmicks. Otherwise, every tenth poster would be an unfunny gimmick that no one even notices. If you can't really, really pull off what you're doing in an interesting way, like GameQuoter or whatever, you're just being obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.4254407]

>not realizing that modernity never ended and we are trapped in a cultural Groundhog Day

[Anonymous No.4254408]

>>4253295
because he's a beaner (I mean it, he's a mexican of the wetback subspecies)

[Anonymous No.4254411]

>>4253187
old men, top right. I was expecting him to die any moment

[Anonymous No.4254413]

>>4254407
>not realizing the futility of mentioning it
if we were, no one would ever believe us

[Anonymous No.4254420]

>>4254413
plot twist

[Anonymous No.4256211]

>implying history itself isn't over
>implying we haven't came full circle
>the ultimate truth is that there is no truth
>tfw we're back in the wilderness again

[Anonymous No.4256263]

>>4256211
>implying that wasn't what modernism was
>implying postmodernism isn't symptomatic of the end of that era
>implying we won't be obsessed with modernist works for hundreds of years to come, all of them possessing the timeless beauty of the art of antiquity

[Anonymous No.4256491]

>>4253172
You just went full post modern obscurity.

[Anonymous No.4256508]

>The spectacle presents itself as something >enormously positive, indisputable and >inaccessible. It says nothing more than “that >which appears is good, that which is good >appears. The attitude which it demands in >principle is passive acceptance which in fact it >already obtained by its manner of appearing >without reply, by its monopoly of appearance.