PoMo Studies Hoax (gets taken seriously)

[Laura Kelber]

I think the pomo elements in Dee Pava's book work better than they might
because of the brutal reality (NYC courts) he's describing. The first
chapter is a highly accurate portrayal of a legal aid lawyer's day in the
utterly insane justice system. On the way home he encounters a
roller-skating chimpanzee (if I recall) on the Brooklyn Bridge. Not that
jarring after what comes before.

Laura

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018, 6:50 PM Becky Lindroos <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Thank you John.   You always make sense.
>
> I think pomo has kind of exhausted itself in the 21st century but some of
> the ideas and techniques are still around - usefully,  imo. Like for Serio
> de la Pava’s funky chunky little legal crime caper book,  "A Naked
> Singularity”  (2010?)
>
>
> Becky
> https://beckylindroos.wordpress.com
>
> > On Oct 7, 2018, at 2:41 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > When I first studied a smattering of pomo theory at university I found
> > it a wonderfully useful way of sidestepping a bunch of power
> > structures that otherwise seemed unchallengeable in our society.
> > Later I taught a course in it and found myself much more ambivalent
> > about that usefulness.
> > A long while later, today, I think the best thinking on postmodern
> > theory remains Fredric Jameson's Postmodernism, or The Logic of Late
> > Capitalism (which also popularised the term itself). Jameson's was a
> > very critical analysis of a network of cultural artefacts he thought
> > said something about late capitalism, ie postmodernism is the cultural
> > face of hyper-capitalism. I haven't found anything to refute this and
> > it's why I think postmodernism is both very troubling and absolutely
> > of our times.
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:32 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> yes.
> >>
> >> I like the word "real' here in its straightforward, hard-working way.
> Some
> >> say Reality, a real conception of it as real,[sic] so to speak, has been
> >> weakened in our understanding because of Po-Mo. I can't judge.   I do
> like
> >> this nuanced statement and only want to accent Kafka on the 'art' of a
> >> 'book/novel':  It must be like an axe to crack the frozen ice within us.
> >>
> >> "The real issue with all arts is the degree to which it generates
> genuine
> >> awe, insight, laughter, enjoyment, and the degree to which it stirs the
> >> waters and compels us to think and question and see in fresh ways."
> >>
> >> And I think talking about any work of art clearly and with whatever
> >> intelligence we can bring to it is what criticism is--or should be.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 10:41 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> While I find Morris's insults juvenile and unnecessarily troll-like. I
> >>> remember when I first joined the list and Post Modernism was used by
> most
> >>> participants as hip and insightful and descriptive of Pynchon.I was
> openly
> >>> dubious. I tried to get a grasp on what it was and found strains of
> thought
> >>> that were important: cultural and personal context as needed to
> understand
> >>> a phenomena, deconstrution as a tool, the rejection of isms you
> mention,
> >>> and to a lesser degree the difficulty or in some arguments the
> >>> impossibility of all communication mediated by language or symbols. I
> just
> >>> never saw the value or intelligence of the term itself, which seemed
> mostly
> >>> a way to seem hiply contemporary. It has the same obvious flaw as the
> term
> >>> modernism; it just can’t last. It also became obvious that people meant
> >>> different things when they used it.
> >>>
> >>> At the time I had come to the conclusion in thinking about the labels
> >>> applied to art history that there was something misleading about these
> >>> labels. Can a “modern” artist be inspired by ancient tribal arts? But
> more
> >>> than such anomalies it is the individual nature of making art, the
> >>> uniqueness of artists and their work that is the problem. Often a
> single
> >>> one or 2 two artists or artist fit the label  and others are ineptly
> >>> crammed into the package. If these labels were really needed and
> helpful
> >>> they would be more justified but they seem to be a by-product of a
> cultural
> >>> obsession with labels rather than a clarifying and informing use of
> >>> language. Some such terms are more useful than others. Art nouveau was
> a
> >>> style movement affecting many products and buildings and evokes a
> useful
> >>> image to anyone who has seen some of the work. Of course if you
> tranlate it
> >>> into English it would be called new art and no-one would know what you
> are
> >>> talking about.
> >>>
> >>> For me the problem with these “conservative” thinkers is that they
> apply
> >>> what could be called post modern analysis to Post Modernism but they
> refuse
> >>> to apply this same critical thinking to their own meaningless labels
> and
> >>> cultural blind spots. They themselves want to be associated with
> >>> “traditional” values, but they are not Christians, they are not
> >>> capitalists, they are not constitutionalists, they despise other
> people’s
> >>> “freedom”, and it is virtually impssible to tell what the fuck they
> want to
> >>> “conserve”. Do they really love the flag in some bizarre symbolic
> >>> relationship or is it the ultimate representative of their violent
> embrace
> >>> of conformity and the identity politics they claim to despise?
> >>>
> >>> The real issue with all arts is the degree to which it generates
> genuine
> >>> awe, insight, laughter, enjoyment, and the degree to which it stirs the
> >>> waters and compels us to think and question and see in fresh ways.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 5, 2018, at 1:24 AM, Matthew Taylor <
> matthew.taylor923 at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You: David Morris
> >>>> Me: Matthew Taylor
> >>>>
> >>>> (Did I do that right?)
> >>>>
> >>>> My point was that postmodernism is as misunderstood as it is
> denigrated,
> >>>> and Jordan Peterson—who is (unfortunately) extremely popular and
> >>>> influential right now—has popularized the term as a bogeyman among a
> >>> bunch
> >>>> of people who have confused and contradictory ideas about what it
> means.
> >>>> You can't really talk about contemporary popular understandings of
> >>>> "postmodernism" or "myth" or "archetypes" without at least mentioning
> >>> him.
> >>>> I was responding to John Bailey, agreeing with his point that it is
> now
> >>> the
> >>>> "catch-all term encompassing everything despised by the conservative
> >>>> neolibs who follow Jordan Peterson and the like."
> >>>>
> >>>> Peterson himself politicizes the term, trying to associate it with
> things
> >>>> like Marxism. My post also argued that whatever postmodernism may or
> may
> >>>> not be, it sure as hell *isn't* that. I wasn't talking about politics
> to
> >>>> "ignore" postmodernism, I was saying that a great deal of the popular
> >>>> discourse about postmodernism politicizes it in a way that is
> flat-out,
> >>>> demonstrably wrong. I think any discussion about contemporary
> >>> understanding
> >>>> of postmodernism has to contend with Jordan Peterson—he is a force to
> be
> >>>> reckoned with even if he's a dummy. Writing a bestselling book and
> >>> getting
> >>>> ~$80k/month on Patreon means he has a hell of a platform, and I think
> a
> >>> lot
> >>>> of the misunderstanding of what postmodernism might mean can be
> >>> attributed
> >>>> directly to him.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Like" it or not, I think it's probably important to at least have an
> >>>> accurate understanding.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:24 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> You: I genuinely don't know what you mean by saying that my post
> >>> "confirms
> >>>>>> PoMo school to be drowning in politics."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Me: your post focused on a political asshole, and ignored anything
> about
> >>>>> what PoMo is/was.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Morris
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>