We've seen in the last few weeks that Jameson thinks one of the key features of postmodernism is a crisis in history: because it cannot come to grips with history, postmodern art and literature is condemned to recycle images of the past through pastiche and nostalgia. This week, Canadian literary theorist Linda Hutcheon takes a much more optimistic view about the capacity of postmodern writers to engage critically with the past by questioning the ways in which we access and represent it.
So, who has the stronger argument?
And what do you think of the first novel on the course: Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5?
2 comments:
Re: Kristy's question:
...just wondering about Linda Hutcheon's views on parody and pastiche. is she saying that because pastiche isn't really 'random cannibalization',(because of the 'aesthetic and historical past in postmodern architecture') that parody, rather than pastiche is a feature of postmodernism?
i;m confused...also, what does she mean when she says 'to include irony and play is never necessarily to exclude seriousness and purpose in postmodernist art'? any help would be ace.
Yep, you're spot on in suspecting that Hutcheon sees parody - rather than pastiche - as the hallmark of postmodern literature. She also wants to suggest that irony and play are dominant modes in postmodern writing, but that this doesn't make it superficial or unable to reflect on the 'big questions'.
One question to ask here is whether Jameson and Hutcheon are comparing like with like, or apples wth oranges. Do Hutcheon's arguments hold true when thinking about Warhol? And does Jameson have a point when he critiques Doctorow's writing?
Kurt Vonnegut died today, aged 84. So it goes.
Post a Comment