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.
Tim
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?
>
> JIM DOHERTY
>
> [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