Subject
VN and debunking the postmodern myth (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: Robert Rabiee <costanza2000@yahoo.com>
I was reading Dr. Boyd's excellent book on "Pale Fire"
(thank you, Dr. Boyd, for saving my insignificant
student life), when a thought came to me. Can it
possibly be time to debunk the foolish myth of the
"postmodern" novel? Boyd's reference to it as a sort
of passing fad, an academic expression of fashionable
value alone, was a revelation to me. I had, of course,
never been a proponent of postmodernism; but one does
feel a bit of apprehension when going about the
destruction of such a deeply entrenched lie, an idea
believed by so many.
And how, precisely, do we go about its destruction?
I am a fan of the language argument. That is, that
there IS a universal truth within each text: that is,
the truth of the language itself. By virtue of the
fact that we use the language, we accept the
universality of symbols - as Kristava would have it,
by jumping from the semiotic to symbolic chora, we
inherently recognize the existence and sancticy of
this thing called language. Therefore the postmodern
desire to debunk all universals as a lie, leaving the
only universal to be the lack of universals, unravels.
That I can read a Pynchon or Barth in the same
language as Milton or Fitzgerald, that one can read
Julio Cortázar in the same language as Cervantes,
instantly defies the lack of a universal. Given, it is
a human construct - but to us solidly secular folk,
every concept (love, hate, God, justice, etc.) is.
This does not, of course, exclude personal
subjectivity; taste and truth are, after all, two very
different things. I'm obliged to think of Roland
Barthes here; in "The Pleasures of the Text," when he
asserts that PLEASURE is a universal,
culturally-immune trait. One of the great postmodern
thinkers espousing a universal. Fascinating.
These are just a few ideas that came to me. I'd be
interested in hearing other opiniosn on this idea,
from some of you established academics. I am, after
all, little more than a plucky undergraduate senior
with too much time and a passion for Nabokov. What
would VN's reaction be to his texts being called
postmodern, I wonder? Did he recognize it as a
legitimate intellectual movement or a falsehood, a
harlequin? Can we ever really shake ourselves of this
outdated ideology? Just a few ideas for possible
debate.
All the best,
Rob Rabiee
I was reading Dr. Boyd's excellent book on "Pale Fire"
(thank you, Dr. Boyd, for saving my insignificant
student life), when a thought came to me. Can it
possibly be time to debunk the foolish myth of the
"postmodern" novel? Boyd's reference to it as a sort
of passing fad, an academic expression of fashionable
value alone, was a revelation to me. I had, of course,
never been a proponent of postmodernism; but one does
feel a bit of apprehension when going about the
destruction of such a deeply entrenched lie, an idea
believed by so many.
And how, precisely, do we go about its destruction?
I am a fan of the language argument. That is, that
there IS a universal truth within each text: that is,
the truth of the language itself. By virtue of the
fact that we use the language, we accept the
universality of symbols - as Kristava would have it,
by jumping from the semiotic to symbolic chora, we
inherently recognize the existence and sancticy of
this thing called language. Therefore the postmodern
desire to debunk all universals as a lie, leaving the
only universal to be the lack of universals, unravels.
That I can read a Pynchon or Barth in the same
language as Milton or Fitzgerald, that one can read
Julio Cortázar in the same language as Cervantes,
instantly defies the lack of a universal. Given, it is
a human construct - but to us solidly secular folk,
every concept (love, hate, God, justice, etc.) is.
This does not, of course, exclude personal
subjectivity; taste and truth are, after all, two very
different things. I'm obliged to think of Roland
Barthes here; in "The Pleasures of the Text," when he
asserts that PLEASURE is a universal,
culturally-immune trait. One of the great postmodern
thinkers espousing a universal. Fascinating.
These are just a few ideas that came to me. I'd be
interested in hearing other opiniosn on this idea,
from some of you established academics. I am, after
all, little more than a plucky undergraduate senior
with too much time and a passion for Nabokov. What
would VN's reaction be to his texts being called
postmodern, I wonder? Did he recognize it as a
legitimate intellectual movement or a falsehood, a
harlequin? Can we ever really shake ourselves of this
outdated ideology? Just a few ideas for possible
debate.
All the best,
Rob Rabiee