Atdtda22: [42.1i] Modern poetry, 607 - time binding! ricken racken !@#$

[Mr Haney]

I have often (walked down this street before... no no no...)
felt that using Modernism to encompass a poetic movement
is abusing poetic license
 
Modern means, like, up-to-date, ya know? and that is so obviously
a moving target!  If you stick I-dunno-1880-to-1950 with "modern"
for all time, then obviously you're stuck with "postmodern" for
what comes next.
 
And then after that you're just stuck -- in fact, this may be the
damn problem with literature these days.
 
Why not choose a descriptive, if slightly more humble name?  There
are boatloads to choose from.
 
Looking at previous World Lit, you've got periods like the Enlightenment -- something like
that would be good!  How about, "the disillusionment" instead of
modernism?   and then, instead of "postmodernism", "The Experimentation"
which can still be going on....
 
are there really any good reasons for calling _any_ given period or
school of lit, "modernism" --- Please let me know if there is even 1 !!!
 
 
 
 
> From: isread at btinternet.com> To: pynchon-l at waste.org> Subject: Re: Atdtda22: [42.1i] Modern poetry, 607> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:14:56 +0000> > I could say I sometimes throw out such contentious titbits to see if anyone> is paying attention. However, this has taken me by surprise, a tad.> > Some would differentiate between modernism (as a way of seeing) and> modernity (as a way of periodising), and I can see the point of doing that.> To say modernity begins and ends does beg the question when.> > The main point, of course, is that discursively everything is connected if> not directly, and it becomes the analyst's job (in this case the novelist's)> to seek out those connections (in Foucault's words, the relations between> statements). One can try to relate, eg, Durkheim's Suicide to Anna Karenina> without too much bother. Whether it's done successfully, and who defines> success, is another matter; but this strikes me as a more interesting> critical/theoretical exercise than most. And it shouldn't lead to> reductionism of the 'Pynchon hates trains/TV' kind. Tunnel-visionists need> not apply.> > > > From Monte:> > Can't fault you for ambition. My experience has been that except in very> skillful hands (and that would include Jameson's), anything stretched that> far tends to oscillate between vacuity (because it has to impose coherence> on "Things That Happened Between <startdate> and <enddate>")...> > And tunnel vision or outright intellectual imperialism: as in Madsen's case,> dismissing a huge preponderance of "straight" or "traditional" Western> narratives that reached many millions, and defining a comparatively narrow> Turner-Wister-John Ford lineage -- one incorporating the cultural critique> which engages Madsen's interest -- as the "true" Western.> 
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last.  Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20071114/d559e7ca/attachment-0001.html>