/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6369567]

Postmodern literature fights against resolutions that create meaning, arguing that even the smallest resolutions or revelations that are meaningful are not possible or are not true to modern life.

Am I wrong? I really dont fucking know.

[Anonymous No.6369572]

when have stories ever been true to life?

[Anonymous No.6369593]

>>6369572
Arguably all the time.

[Anonymous No.6369594]

>>6369567
Why the fuck would you expect stories to be naturalistic descriptions of life? They're art, we can introduce meaning to them all we want.

[Anonymous No.6369598]

>>6369567
>Am I wrong?
Your exegesis contradicts itself. "true to modern life" is an appeal to meaning.

[Anonymous No.6369599]

That anime is shit

[Anonymous No.6369603]

>>6369599
anime is shit

[Anonymous No.6369611]

postmodernism doesn't exist. We are at the apex of modernism. The desire for post-modernism, and post-post-modernism, and OMG-what comes-next-ism is a part of modernism, but we haven't progressed beyond modernism.

[Anonymous No.6369615]

>>6369594
I did not make that expectation. I don't even know where you got that from. I didn't say anything about what can or can not be a story. I made a claim about what is postmodern literature. If that is true, there is everything else that it isn't.

>>6369598
What I posted is not my exegesis. That exegesis is one that I have gathered together when trying to figure out what is postmodern literature. If that is what postmodern literature is, then whatever if it is inconsistent, I am just wondering if what I said correctly represents what postmodern literature tries to argue for or present.

>>6369599
It is but the gif is nice

[Anonymous No.6369627]

>>6369611
>postmodernism doesn't exist. We are at the apex of modernism
This

If so-called "postmodernism" is to be regarded as a genuine cultural era, then it makes modernism itself a strangely abbreviated one. After all, if we consider that all other western cultural eras – classicism, medieval, the Renaissance – seem to average about half a millennium a piece, it hardly matters whether you date modernism's onset to Rousseau, Sturm und Drang or Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, it clearly still has a long way to go.

By the same token, if – as many postmodern fanboys seem keen to assert – postmodernism has already run its course, then what should we say has replaced it, post-postmodernism, perhaps? It would seem better all round to accept the truth, which is that we are still solidly within the modernist era, and that the crisis registered in the novel form continues apace.

Postmodernism is an attempt at leaping back to behind the modernist moment – just like postmodern architecture, where the term comes from – to create art out of different styles. It represents a determination to vault over all the quicksand of the 20th century, in order to gain the seemingly safer ground provided by a cut-and-paste job on the styles and modes that antedated it. It's a retreat from the hard-edged insights of modernism itself. It’s an attempt to have the cachet of reinventing the traditional structure of narrative prose fiction without actually having to do the hard work implied by modernist insight

The use of montage for transition; the telescoping of fictional characters into their streams of consciousness; the abandonment of the omniscient narrator; the inability to suspend disbelief in the artificialities of plot – these were always latent in the problematic of the novel form.

[Anonymous No.6369649]

>>6369615
>What I posted is not my exegesis. That exegesis is one that I have gathered together when trying to figure out what is postmodern literature.

>It's not mine.
>I just made it.
>If that is what [it] is, then whatever if it is inconsistent

Yeah, you're a slimey fuck cunt who's been tupped by every Ram in New Zealand.

>I am just wondering if what I said correctly represents

No it fucking doesn't—and necessarily cannot—because what you said, your exegesis, contains a contradiction at the level of characterisation. I hope you piss yourself to death.

= ^ . ^ = seriously, die from diabetes

[Anonymous No.6369674]

>>6369649
Ok, first
> arguing that even the smallest resolutions or revelations that are meaningful are not possible or are not true to modern life.
>are meaningful are not possible or are not true to modern life.
>OR
Not and, or.

Second, I gathered it from others and am asking if this is correct. If it isnt it isnt, and it is entirely possible for some group to argue for something that is self-contradicting, and then for someone else who in no way follows this thing to then bring it up when trying to summarize the their argument.

That doesnt mean I adopted it, and more importantly, far more important, it doesnt somehow mean that it is impossible to summarize a movement who has an inconsistent argument. It just might be that they have an inconsistent argument.

What I am asking is if I am accurately portraying them, not if the argument is correct.

>No it fucking doesn't—and necessarily cannot

Seriously how can you not see how dumb that is.

If someone ask you to repeat what I just said in my OP, would you just find it magically impossible to say it? You necessarily couldnt represent what I just said? Of course you could you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6369717]

>>6369627
What would be the insights that modernist literature showed or attempted to show?

[Anonymous No.6369727]

>>6369674
>Postmodern literature fights against resolutions that create meaning, arguing that even the smallest resolutions or revelations that are meaningful are not possible or are not true to modern life.


Let's break it down for you you stupid fuck.

>[It] fights against resolutions that create meaning […]

>[it is] arguing that [x] are [y] or are not true to modern life.

>[It is against meaning]
>[It relies on an appeal to truth]

Your characterisation is inconsistent, it therefore cannot be true nor an accurate portrayal.

>Second, I gathered it from others
You're backing it, you're fucking responsible for it. If you can't comprehend it, don't posit it as true.

>and it is entirely possible for some group [to be] self-contradicting
Yes, but that isn't what you said. You characterised it in a contradictory manner. Learn to fucking express yourself.

>What I am asking is if I am accurately portraying them
Oh so its your fucking argument again now, not someone elses?

No you're not. Because you're portrayal is contradictory in itself.

You are a stupid cunt and should die in a fucking fire, face down and screaming those crocodile tears.

[Anonymous No.6369731]

>>6369649
How could he know he was contradicting himself if he knows nothing about postmodern discourse? Why are you berating him for trying to acquire exactly the information that would reveal the contradiction to him?
Is it because we're on 4chan? Everyone ITT is being useless, just like every other time someone has asked /lit/ what postmodernism is.

[Anonymous No.6369747]

>>6369731
Those of us who know what post-modernism is, having perhaps read Jameson or Lyotard, are quite able to discuss it without being troll posting animu fucktards who can't even analyse the text they're spouting.

[Anonymous No.6369764]

>>6369731
>How could he know he was contradicting himself if he knows nothing about postmodern discourse?
Simple textual analysis. You don't claim that an object is A and !A simultaneously, unless you're doing dialectics. And OP obviously ain't.

[Anonymous No.6369766]

>>6369567
That's nihilism, not postmodernism, though you're verging on some sort of understanding.

[Anonymous No.6369804]

>>6369727
>nor an accurate portrayal.

Yes it can be. If that is what it is and I am just repeating it it is an accurate portrayal. If it isnt then you need show how it isnt through some sort of evidence.

Again, if someone asked you to accurately portray what I just said, you could copy and paste it. If someone then said you were not characterizing what I said correctly because it is somehow impossible for the original source to be inconsistent, you could easily point out that yes, the original source can be inconsistent and to then accurately portray their claim you have to regurgitate something that is inconsistent.

>You're backing it, you're fucking responsible for it.
What the fuck are you talking about, no I'm not. I asked the question, this isnt my position. Ill say it again, I dont think this is postmodern literature, I am asking if this is what postmodern literature is. If it isnt then show how it isnt through some examples that I can then go read. Just saying I am not characterizing it correctly and then not showing me some examples of how postmodern literature goes against my characterization does nothing.
tldr; what is devil's advocate for just one example

>Yes, but that isn't what you said. You characterised it in a contradictory manner.

>Am I wrong? I really dont fucking know.

I asked if I was portraying it correctly.
Let's say yes. The movement contradicts itself, it is a correct characterization.
Let's say no. The movement doesnt contradict itself. The only way to show this is some essay on the postmodern or some postmodern author declaring what postmodern literature is like, having a good argument or some seat of authority, and then showing examples.

Just saying no postmodern literature cannot necessarily be inconsistent begs for evidence. I want the evidence, just give it already for fucks sake.

>Oh so its your fucking argument again now, not someone elses?
Holy fuck are you lost.

>>What I am asking is if I am accurately portraying them
That is a question, not an argument.

Person A makes argument x.

Person B overhears Person A's argument x.

Person B is not sure if they accurately heard Person A's argument x, and notices Person C was near Person A to hear argument x.

Person B presents argument y, and asks Person C if y is equal to x.

Person B adds that coudlnt hear Person A well and that x seemed to be inconsistent, so they present y as inconsistent, and fully admit to not knowing if y actually is x.

That is fucking why, you piece of shit, Person B asks Person C if y IS EQUAL to x.

>>6369731
Thank you

[Anonymous No.6369823]

What is the difference between modern and postmodern literature anyway?

[Anonymous No.6369843]

>>6369804
>Yes it can be. If that is what it is and I am just repeating it it is an accurate portrayal. If it isnt then you need show how it isnt through some sort of evidence.

Tu quoque. Those making positive claims have the first obligation.

>if someone asked you to accurately portray what I just said
than the tearful depictions in rape doujinshi.

If you wish to argue that post-modernism is inconsistent then fucking argue it. But you didn't. You made two separate claims regarding its nature that are mutually incompatible. Because you're a dumb fuck.

I've not evaluated your claims about what post-modernist literature is against post-modern literature, note this is the first time you've introduced literature (yet another man behind your curtain), I have simply shown that your claims are contradictory and therefore wrong.

I don't need to proceed to empirical reality to demonstrate that you're wrong: you're wrong because you've contradicted yourself.

>[Now I'd like to talk about contradictions]
Learn what a fucking topic sentence is.

>>6369804
>Thank you
So you admit you don't know if you're contradicting yourself? Noice.

[Anonymous No.6369851]

>>6369823
One is written by insufferable bourgeois white cunts from the metropole of capitalism and the other is of course modernism.

[Anonymous No.6369857]

>>6369823
>>6369823
>What is the difference between modern and postmodern literature anyway?
Just the time period.

If you were to judge on anything other than when it was written, then Don Quixote or Moby Dick or Gargantua and Pantagruel would all be classed as postmodern novels, but they were written in the 17th, 19th and 16th centuries respectively.

[Anonymous No.6369866]

post modernism was for cowardly old men who had no original ideas yet still wished to dillydally the day away under the guise of art with a pen between their fingers. vacuous empty literature afraid to say anything.

[Anonymous No.6369908]

>>6369843
>Those making positive claims have the first obligation.

I asked a question you retard. The claim was there to get the fucking thread going on something. I could have easily just asked, what is postmodern literature like.
If that isn't true, why is
>Am I wrong? I really dont fucking know.
In my OP?

For example, to help illustrate
"I heard postmodern literature is really depressing when they are happy, am I wrong?"
"You're characterizing postmodern literature wrong"
"Oh nice, how? Do you have any examples so I know you're not talking out of your ass?"
"No, you're just wrong because it is necessarily impossible for postmodern literature to be depressing while at the same time happy"
"I get that it's a weird claim but people have been throwing that around, and I didn't know what to think WHICH IS WHY I ASKED A QUESTION, mind giving me some examples so I am yet again not thinking something about postmodern literature just on what some anon said, which is why I asked this question in the first place"
"scuze me while I sperg"

>than the tearful depictions in rape doujinshi.
What

>f you wish to argue that post-modernism is inconsistent then fucking argue it.
I didnt, I asked a question, you retard.

>But you didn't.
I know I didn't. I openly said in the OP I didn't know, again

>Am I wrong? I really dont fucking know.


You are fighting a ghost because you're delusional in your rage.

I have nothing in on this argument of yours, and I never did. It's like you're begging me to fight you when I asked for directions to the bathroom

You can just stop posting now. The person you think you are arguing with, the one who is hell bent on proving that postmoderism is inconsistent, doesn't exist in this thread.

[Anonymous No.6369925]

>>6369567

Postmodern literature isn't.

[Anonymous No.6369928]

>>6369908
>What
何

>The person you think you are arguing with, the one who is hell bent on proving that postmoderism is inconsistent, doesn't exist in this thread.

No, a pained little person incapable of expressing themselves with any clarity is. Someone who can't differentiate in their writing between their own ideas and the ideas of others. Who doesn't cite. Who posts animu, but doesn't know its really awwwwright.

[Anonymous No.6370414]

The concept of "postmodern literature" goes against postmodern theory, since its a critical theory and not a particularly constructive one.
A lot of people think that vanguards like surrealism or dada are postmodern but not only did they come before but the spirit they represent (change and evolution, breaking through the present into what should be reality) is clearly modernist (they carry metanarratives)