Peter is right regarding the nebulousness of the term postmodernism,
although it has been defined by Charles Jencks and I think that early
definition does help one understand what is and what isn't postmodern. I
linked Larkin, Auden and Prynne together because their work seems to have
many modernist elements, and in the case of the latter two, there is a
common interest in science --a point not picked up by Billy in his
taxonomies. It is true I think that the postmodern term is used as a spice,
as was modern and modernism in the first half of this century, and it is
somewhat sexy, I mean in packaging terms, but all this doesn't disqualify
it --indeed its ubiquity means that we cannot wish it away --much of the
Americas and the European continent has embraced this term and produced
libraries full of theoretical texts --and poetry that has the postmodern
hallmark. Is it a trend or fashion? When we come to consider literary
history, the postmodern is a convenient shelf --and although one might
dislike it, one must recognize its validity, just as one has become
accustomed to the earlier terms and concepts Cubism, Impressionism modernism
and so on. I would not put Prynne on that shelf.
written after 12hours of drinking..four hours sleep --
insults
fuck you postmodernity
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|