Yeah, what th’ heck *are* the “points” of pomo?

[Michael Bailey]

There is a ligature in the “m” - I’m not asking what are the points of
porno, as would be the purport if the humps of the “m” were unbound…

With porno - as some judge said,
“I know it when I see it!”

With Pomo?
Author cropping up in the tale?
Experimental structures that subvert expectations?
Something that is clearly a development beyond modernism -


which, what th’ heck is modernism?
Long frickin’ books?
Also experimental but not as radical as Pomo?


And - what do you call
Churlish non-appreciative types - Sokal and Bricmont - submitting gibberish
in an effort to discredit complex argument, as in the Science Wars?

I have this in common with them: when I apply the blade of my vocabulary to
the wrought iron of description, the teeth get worn down and I start
sounding like their parodies, failing to make the cut.
(Need the carbon steel, or the zircon-encrusted tweezers!)

Other literary trends with roots in modernist, postmodern, and even
pre-modern lit make more sense:

Queering - questioning fundamental tenets of sex and gender, exploring
transgressiveness

Postcolonialism (Joyce as Irishperson working out on English, eg)

Deconstruction - yeah, break it down!

Theory - application of particular tenets of individual theorists to texts
- which in aggregate, I think, is the phenomenon most often called
postmodernism- this is vulnerable to debunkers like Sokal and Bricmont, who
rip through the lace of fanciful argument because it isn’t denim (would
Levi-Strauss approve?)


And thank you, too, for your forbearance!


Dave and Mark wrote:

First, I really like that analogy. I'm gonna use it somewhere.

Second, I think Pynchon is and has always
been a modernist. All of the indebtedness is there. Literary postmodernism
is NOT
simply the narrative trickery of GR particularly, or the way that rocket
keeps on falling.

Although I think, if he had to answer, Thomas Pynchon would say he knew
what postmodernism is
and it ain't him. Philip Roth, when asked by Terri Gross about his
postmodern turn---re *The Counterlife*, I think,
maybe *Operation Shylock*,--the one with the two Philip Roths--- dunno,
said "Terri, I don't even know what postmodernism
is, I just try to tell my story in the best way I can." [not necessarily an
exact quote]

And, yes, I see less talk of postmodernism in the facile lit sphere than
just a few years ago. It seems taken for granted in
academic books I learn of. So, yes, we are beyond it or always in it as we
seem to have been in late capitalism for longer than we've
all been alive.

Thanks, David.

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 7:57 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com
<https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>> wrote:

>* A ramble:
*>>* Does everyone (or MOST everyone) agree that Postmodernism, however
*>* problematic that label might be, is now in the past us?  I don’t hear
*>* anyone taking about it anymore. Although I don’t know what we might be “in”
*>* right  now, I gather whatever it is, it’s still described in relation to
*>* modernism somehow, aspects of modernism, either “neo” or “post”
*>* **something** or other (like, maybe, post or neo structuralism).  Or maybe
*>* “it” just claims ownership of some aspect of modernism without admitting
*>* lineage, maybe as if there never really was a modernism?
*>>* I’ve never been a part of lit-theory, but being a long time member of this
*>* list, I remember when Pynchon was often called a postmodernist.  I think
*>* most of the early postmodern fiction writers were consciously rebelling
*>* against aspects of modernism, so there was some consciousness of being in a
*>* writer’s “generation,” but probably not a school or movement.  Being put
*>* into a labeled category usually is the work of critics and historians after
*>* the fact (like Charles Jencks inventing the term “postmodern” - Is that
*>* really true?  And he was ONLY taking about architecture!  So that’s ANOTHER
*>* major aspect of this discussion).
*>>* Anyway…
*>* The reason I’m thinking about this is that I recently joined a Facebook
*>* group for things Art Deco.  And people there are always posting things that
*>* AREN’T Art Deco, and then asking, “Is this Art Deco?” And off to the races
*>* we go, with the ever-present comment that all opinions on the subject are
*>* equally valid, which is, of course absurdly ignorant.  It is a moderated
*>* group, so, odds are, my days there are numbered…  So be it.
*>>* So in response to someone saying that all opinions are valid, I wrote this:
*>>* “Art styles are like breeds of dogs.  A dog breed is judged by a set of
*>* “points” specific to that breed.  Art styles also have points that have
*>* been agreed upon by art historians and art critics.  These points identify
*>* if a dog/artwork is of a known style, and also the level of excellence the
*>* dog/artwork reaches in meeting those points.  Not all dogs are  Great
*>* Danes, and artworks are not all Art Deco, no matter how much the viewer
*>* loves them.“
*>>* This kind of analysis is probably only useful for visual medium.  But I
*>* enjoyed coming up with this analogy that even those (on Facebook) without
*>* any knowledge of “schools” or eras might understand.
*>>* Thanks for your forbearance.
*>* David Morris*