How Postmodernism Killed Great Literature | Hacker News Reader

How Postmodernism Killed Great Literature

jamesgmartin.center

16 pointsBostonian16 comments

FYI this site is a libertarian think tank that exists to attack contemporary state funded liberal arts higher education, in favor of higher ed as job training. From their About Us:

> Since 2003, the Martin Center has been a voice for excellence and accountability in higher education. We believe that higher education should equip students to flourish in their careers, embrace responsible citizenship, and grow as seekers of wisdom. We advocate responsible governance, viewpoint diversity, academic quality, cost-effective education solutions, and innovative market-based reform.

> In these endeavors, we are motivated by the principles that have traditionally guided public policy in the United States: limits on government; freedom to pursue goals through voluntary means, both for-profit and nonprofit; accountability through private property rights and contracts; and the belief that competition is an excellent regulating force.

> Today, the publishing industry as a whole turns its nose up to narratives that promote objective meaning.

> There’s a lot to unpack in that claim, but it is no accident that the publishing industry shies away from books that illustrate “the good life” in the Aristotelian sense.

Alright, let’s see what the comps are.

> These books will fade into oblivion in the next decade while great novels with moral messages—Anna Karenina, The Great Gatsby, East of Eden—will stay with us even after we leave this earth, for they are not only well-written but also meaningful.

Not one of these is about “the good life”! The Great Gatsby in particular is as close to a book about nihilism and hedonism as you can get, and was criticized in its own time for lacking morals.

So the essay is a little incoherent, a little “retvrn” to a past that doesn’t exist.

It’s convenient to blame Derrida, Barthes and Lyotard but my God, do the legwork to connect them to the thing you’re actually complaining about. If “English departments” are to blame for the nihilistic literature you don’t like, then show where that influence came from—the only connection the article provides is a flimsy “she also dislikes capitalism.” Moshfegh got her MFA from Brown, and last I checked there were few Derrida scholars there.

Most novelists these days don’t come from the university system, nor does theoretical literary criticism have much influence among the large publishers.

This is truly some ahistorical reactionary nonsense. I thought people got tired of complaining about “postmodernism” 30 years ago.

Yes, most art is bad! Historical art seems better because it has stood the test of time, and we don’t see the junk it outlived. Yawn.

The right is weird that way, they're still stuck in a frame of mind and set of references from the 1960s or earlier. They'll talk about "women's lib" and feminism as if they're new, they consider hair dye and piercings to be signs of radicalism, they still think about China as Maoist and Russia as Soviet, and still see the world (and America in particular) through Cold War ideology.

They still complain about hippies as if there were any left. They want to go back to the gold standard. They yearn for the mines and the factories, for the hard times of hard men that they've only read stories about. And of course they believe all modern art and media is infantile, leftist garbage and they harbor a particular mistrust of the "cultural Marxists" in academia.

And the younger they are, the more regressive they get. It's like they're LARPing as characters in a Norman Lear sitcom that they don't understand are supposed to be parodies of them. The trad caths are more hardcore than Catholics have been in a thousand years. The groypers are more racist and misogynist than their own grandparents.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that they're still complaining about postmodernism. They aren't capable of updating their philosophy or looking forward, they can only look backward to an imaginary golden age and the spoils they feel entitled to and robbed of by "the left." They can never get over a fear of the future that's so deeply rooted in fundamentalist Christianity. It's just another wound on their psyches that will never heal.

Letting the three comments above do the "this is incorrect, stupid, and a grift" work for me (thanks, folks!) but that the Bloomites are still running the "words mean things" grift under the current US regime is hilarious

The traditionalist, anti-postmodernists would have a lot more ground to stand on if they hadn’t rallied behind a draft dodging pedophile (I.e., Jordan Peterson). Don’t talk about morality and meaning and then vote for a nihilist fascist. I don’t know who the author voted for but I can guess. Get lost.

Postmodernism is a pretty dead horse to beat on at this point. Once upon a time people in academia were afraid to call it out as nonsense, for fear of getting called too dumb to understand the "discourse". It's now widely derided by lefties as a 1980s CIA conspiracy to befuddle dissidents with bizarre logic puzzles and meaningless jargon.

Do you have evidence for any of that?

It’s been acknowledged that Abstract Expressionism was partly a CIA op ( https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/ ) probably along with other attempts at cultivating anti-Soviet “soft power.”

As for postmodernism or deconstruction, the connections are less clear. Derrida for instance had connections with American universities that themselves had government connections and funding sources, but I don’t know of any evidence of a direct link.

I knew about expressionism. Has nothing to do with postmodernism. I do believe the CIA determined that post modernism was not a threat because it was so abstract and also the left tends to eat itself without outside help. Regardless the content of the philosophy is extremely compelling.

The author of this article is so straightlaced she didn't realize My Year of Rest and Relaxation is a satire...that should tell you everything you need to know.

> Modern life, according to Moshfegh and many other writers of contemporary literary fiction, has no meaning whatsoever!

If the intent is to satirize meaninglessness, then perhaps the protagonist should have joined a satirical cult, like the one in the Illuminatus! Trilogy, proclaiming that Bugs Bunny is God, and Earth is shaped like a carrot.

A satirical look at null, it seems, should argue something non-null in the end.

Art doesn’t “argue,” it is something open to its own possibilities. Proscribing anything for art kills it.

Art does, too, offer arguments, more or less explicitly.

Same with making the title of a Barthes essay a cornerstone of the argument.

This person speak about "The Postmodern Condition" like they read it, but as they didn't, the criticism comes out as dead wrong and quite dumb.

Don't read this person. I'm not saying you have to read the whole book to use a quote, but talking this confidently while doing what we call in French a "contresens" is a sign that the author have no business talking about serious books or philosophy.

It's like Ayn Rand who believed Kant "critique of pure reason" is about criticism of the scientific method and now a huge part of US authors think the same while never having read Kant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com