globalization & Pynchon?

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jane Sweet <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: globalization & Pynchon?


> In literature, for example,
> Modernism is most of what Postmodernism claims Modernism is
> not, actually the pomo often make Modernism out to be an
> evil anal rentative monster with three heads one of them
> being T.S. Eliot climbing the tower of London waiting for
> the brand to come. But modernism is not only not what Pomo
> says it is, it is what pomo says it aint. Check it out. The
> next time you read a definition of pomo see if they don't
> make Modernism out to be some kind of evil monster. Then, go
> back and read what people said Modernism was 15 years ago
> or so and have your jaw drop as you realize that pomo is MO,
> just mo mo, more of the same. And globalization, it's mo mo
> too. Mo  involves a radical rethinking about
> the relationship between fictions and reality. Its roots are
> EXCEPTIONALLY broad because it is a result of cultural
> broadening and the cross-fertization between cultures,
> between art forms and between disciplines. Kinda like
> knocking down boundaries, but not being so destructive and
> self-serving about it. It's good to learn new words, like
> pomo and globalization, to get all this information about
> what's going on, where the deals are being made, who is
> getting hurt and who is getting rich, but it's nothing new
> really, it's not pomo, it's not global, it's life and life
> only and it's awlright ma.
>

"Jane," tell me the postmodern definition of modernism which treats
modernism badly.

I think that postmodernism mainly made an end to the modernist claim that
there could be something really new.

As the proverb says: there's nothing new under the sun except what we have
forgotten.

Otto