POMO rants (was dfw ... nobel specks)

[Paul York]

MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu wrote:
> 
> Paul York and Max continue the tiresome rant.  C'mon guys.  Insert the name of your
> Dad's profession  and the jargon he uses at work into your puerile caricatures of
> *postmodernists* and you;ll see how unfair such slams are.  

Clearly, I seem to have yanked *your* chain in an unpleasant way.  But, 
if you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote in my post it would be 
clear that what I was protesting was the word "postmodernist" and not 
postmodernists themselves.  I happen to be something of a fan of any 
number of novelists and/or thinkers who fall under various individuals' 
concepts of what is postmodern.

Nor do I state at any point that I have a problem with the use of jargon 
in academia (I mean, come on, whose post were you reading?)  And the 
word "postmodern," as it's so casually bandied about these days 
(_Newsweek_ seems to be using it as a synonym for "hip") hardly 
qualifies as a legitimate example of jargon.  Jargon, at least as it is 
used in most professions, generally involves language that refers very 
specific concepts and processes, and to provide those familiar with the 
jargon clear and abbreviated means of referring to these concepts and 
processes.  "Postmodernism," on the other hand, has about as many 
different meanings as there are people who use the word.

> Of course there are cynical elitist morons masquerading as *postmodernist* writers or
> thinkers.  And there are  cynical elitist morons masquerading as doctors, and cynical elitist
> morons masquerading as social workers,  cynical elitist morons masquerading as waiters,
> or plisters.  Whaddya gonna do about that?  Does spreading malice which only further
> highlights the dangerous anti-intellectual streak of our culture help things?

Whose spreading malice?  I was just noting that certain individuals that 
*someone else* referred to (quite nicely, I thought) as "middle-class, 
culturally educated, meta-ironic Americans" were probably just as likely 
to be found reading Pynchon as they were some 35-year-old upstart whose 
very name seems to raise a lot of hackles around here :-).

[snippage of a hypothetical anecdote which I would probably have found 
amusing if I hadn't recognized in it a caricature of someone dear to me]

> Paul continues:
> >, but Pynchon, as do DeLillo,
> >Coover, [insert name of author who writes books people don't get] etc.
> >do have their cadres of hipper-than-thou, see-right-through-it-all,
> >know-what-fiction's-about,
> 
>gonna-go-to-grad-school-and-write-a-2000-page-novel-with-parallel-text-in-esperanto
> >types.)
> 
> Uh, would you say you sound a tad cynical here, Paul?

No.  I would be cynical if I thought *everyone* (or even a good portion 
of everyone) who read "those guys" could be characterized like this.  So 
maybe I waxed a little hyperbolic.  Sue me.  You didn't really think I 
was talking about *you* did you? :-)
> 
> >  IMO _IJ_ has sincerety out the wazoo.
> 
> One useful thing a chat with a nice postmodernist teacher might do for you is to help you
>  understand how you have arrived at what constitutes *sincerity.*  Or do you think it is
> self-evident?  The same in all times and places?  Uniformly good?  A pure thing?  Yes,
> postmodern therapy, fort et dure, seems clearly indicated.

Now this is exactly the sort of elitist horseshit I'm talking about.  
Spare me your sophmoric lecture on subjectivity.  In *my* opinion, the 
book by the unmentionable author does have sincerity out the wazoo.  At 
what point does this become tantamount to my saying that this is 
self-evident?  The same in all times and places?  Yadda yadda yadda?  
(And, what the hell is a postmodernist teacher anyways?)

You know, I usually enjoy your posts (particularly enjoyed your latest 
re "Difficult"?), but this one just makes me want to take my marbles and 
go home.

	Paul "Mom, they're calling me names again" York