|
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF LITERATURE, PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE
Volume: 03 Issue: 04 | April 2022
,
ISSN: 2660-6828
© 2022, CAJLPC, Central Asian Studies, All Rights Reserved
63
Copyright (c) 2022 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY).To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
organization of novels that disrupt existing grand narratives and accomplish that in a new way, representing
innovation past the style of the modernists.
McHale‟s postmodernist fiction establishes a beneficial set of postmodern literary standards because it tries to
combine the formulations of postmodern poetics made by others. In this appreciation, McHale‟s method is
more deductive, as he seems to discover and describe a degree to which different lists of postmodern criteria
concur. To achieve this, McHale examines the initiatives of literary theorists consisting of David inn, Peter
Wollen, and Douwe Fokkema. For you to approach the commonalities of their structures, McHale imports a
concept popularized using roman Jakobson to apply as a higher
‐
order characteristic: the dominant. Jakobson
defined the period in a lecture given in 1935:
The dominant may be defined as the focusing component of a work of art: it rules, determines, and transforms
the remaining components.…A poetic work [is] a structured system, a regularly ordered hierarchical set of
artistic devices. Poetic evolution is a shift in this hierarchy (McHale, 6).
In the dominant, McHale sees an opportunity for a better order of categorization that would upward thrust
above the fray of the various postmodern contradictions, some of which I‟ve delivered above. He chooses to
discover the dominance of postmodernism at the level of philosophical inquiry. He describes his argument
without a doubt: „postmodernist fiction differs from modernist fiction simply as a poetics ruled using
ontological (being, lifestyles) troubles fluctuate from one dominated with the aid of epistemological (the idea
of understanding) troubles‟ (xii). As any philosopher would factor out, McHale recognizes that
epistemological and ontological worries usually exist collectively because they constantly result in the
opposite. But, he insists that one set of questions ought to precede the other; the previous set of questions is
the dominant set. And in postmodernist fiction, McHale argues that inquiries into the character of
understanding and fact are always secondary to inquiries into the character of being and life. My readings,
particularly that of Galapagos, will be undertaking the strict unidirectional relationship McHale assumes
among ontological and epistemological questions, but for now, McHale‟s reasoning represents pretty well the
way critics describe the innovations expected of postmodern literature.
McHale‟s unique postmodern poetics set up a binary between ontological and epistemological questions. This
dating increases a query of whether postmodern literature‟s disruption of grand narratives desires always to
happen through the new narrative‟s counterexample or whether or not this shattering can show up if a story
resists or refutes a current grand narrative. We mean right here that McHale means that postmodernist
literature should monitor a distinct underlying structure, or dominant, in its execution and style. But, such an
implication creates a fake distinction. Refuting a current grand narrative is growing a stylistically modern
narrative, and vice versa. The two are faces of the equal coin. For example, we offer John Hersey‟s New
Yorker article, „Hiroshima‟ (1946), about the destruction of that town by using an atomic bomb. It is a
watershed piece of journalism, and it owes its type as revolutionary to both its taboo content material and its
proto
‐
new journalism style. In best terms, writing about content material out of doors of suited cultural
narratives and writing in an inventive style are simply ways of describing textual introductions of the latest
perspectives, the healing of misplaced voices.
By setting a premium on formal innovation, McHale‟s aspect of this argument appears to be less appreciative
of the similarities between the bureaucracies discovered in modernist in place of postmodernist writing. What
we would name Lyotard‟s aspect of this debate, considering it‟s far posited within the spirit of his most
primary definition of postmodernism, appears to depart open the opportunity, in particular, if we find faith in
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
