Re: RARA-AVIS: Re:Postmodernism and literature

From: Tim Wohlforth (
Date: 22 Mar 2007

I am quite willing to admit, even after reading the very fine posts on po mo I have only a very dim, if that, understanding of the subject. Those of us who seem to be dismissive of it (I really am only speaking for myself) are perhaps reacting to a too analytical and academic approach to writing. I believe a writer, as he or she masters the craft, needs to write in a fashion that is natural to the person and the subject matter. At the same time what we write is affected by our times (what is dark about our world rather than imitating the world of Hammett or Cain), by what those around us are writing (e.g. multiple vps, greater emphasis on character, broken sentences, time shifts, etc.), by movies, TV, the internet. I would not suggest writing consciously in a "po mo" or any other "school" of writing. Of course its merits in the university to critique literature written perhaps in most cases by people who never heard of the term is another matter and not something I know about or are interested in.

These kinds of factors, perhaps more than the influence of an academic school of criticism, may shape our noir from past noir.


On Mar 18, 2007, at 9:59 PM, poul wehner wrote:

> However, many of the postmodernist concepts touched in in this thread
> cannot be refuted philosophically.
> They can be dismissed politically or out of intellectual bias of
> course.
> I spent a large part of the 80's and some of the 90's deeply
> involved in
> this stuff.
> It just about killed my creativity
> In that regard postmodernism is like disco music. When it was in
> fashion it
> was everywhere. But in the mid 90's intellectuals dropped it. It
> was too
> self-referential and had no room for growth only every increasing
> smugness
> (in my opinion). I believe, at the end, intellectuals and academics
> who
> followed postmodernism were left with mere cynicism and a exquisitely
> refined sense of irony. The school was a dead end but many of it's
> principles continue.
> _____
> Miker,
> Re your response to my question about "po-mo":
> So, if I understand you correctly, "po-mo," briefly,
> is short for "post-modern," and "post-modern" is a lot
> of left-wing, pseudo-intellectual horse shit.
> Have I got that right?
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 22 Mar 2007 EDT