Problems of Paranoia [...]

[jbor]

----------
>From: Eric Rosenbloom <ericr at sadlier.com>
>

> Just another thought I had about this Modern/Postmodern, genius/schmo,
> writer/reader thing, and it may say something about some significance in
> Gravity's Rainbow being set at the end of WWII . . .
>
> The "modern" sensibilities appear to have ended with the war, as your
> artist-god looked a bit too much like fascism.

Yes, thinking of Pound in particular here, and I think you can make a sound
case for a temporal breach between "Modernism" and "Post-Modernism" in the
arts along these lines. Also, 1945 serves as a workable sociological divide
in delimiting "modernity" from "postmodernity" as well in terms of such
things as economics, politics, science, technology, culture, the environment
etc. I think.

But there is also the stylistic or attitudinal differentiation between the
two modes which is independent of the temporal breach. For the Modernist
artist-genius the artefact is complete in and of itself -- "closed",
self-sufficient. Through the foregrounding (and manipulations) of
indeterminacy, uncertainty, perspectivism, error &c the postmodern aesthetic
is always -- at least potentially -- an "open" form.

In other words I think that the following might prove to be quite separate
propositions:

Modernism ... Post-Modernism

modernity ... postmodernity

Modernist aesthetic ... postmodern aesthetic

Someone like Updike, for example, who can be labelled as a Post-Modernist
author writing in the period of, and about, postmodernity, does not
necessarily embrace the postmodern aesthetic in his work. I think that
Pynchon -- also Post-Modernist and also writing in the in the period of, but
only sometimes about, postmodernity -- perhaps does embrace this aesthetic.
I don't know if it is useful to think of it in this way: it is for me.

> Your postmodernist is a
> bundle of neuroses thanks to that war of theirs.

I would say that it is a type of humility rather than a "neurosis" (with the
implication of sickness and disease or, indeed, that a "healthier"
alternative exists somewhere). With postmodern art comes an admission that
the artist is as uncertain, as fearful or hopeful about what is and what has
been (and, what will come) -- that his or her perspective is inevitably a
subjective and culturally-produced one, and that the number of such
perspectives extends (again, potentially at least) to near-infinity -- and
that up against it she or he feels as powerless and humbled as the next Jo.
In this respect I don't believe that Pynchon's decision to abjure public
celebrity or academia is neurotic or "paranoid" in the least.

best