|
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
65
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/
diachrony and synchrony. Postmodernism is, in part, a sensibility deployed in artwork characterized via an
extension and enlargement of the bitterness and scepticism toward a civilization that characterized
modernism. At the same time, even though its bitterness and scepticism have at times directed themselves on
the very vehicles for bitterness and scepticism deployed using modernism, specifically the reliance on the
liberal human situation.
My larger point is that this: postmodern literature consists of contradictions that serious essential inquiries are
seeking to resolve, consequently restricting them. Moral critiques of postmodernist literature tend to focus on
dating similarities between the sensibilities of postmodernism and modernism. With the aid of assessment,
poetic evaluations of postmodernist literature naturally cognizance of factors distinguishing postmodernism
and modernism. There‟s nothing incorrect with such reviews. However, we must apprehend that they consider
the most effective relationship inside the „fourfold vision of complementariness‟. Such care is taken to provide
inclusive and elastic definitions of postmodernism, but the identical care to avoid equivocation is now and
again misplaced whilst the body of postmodernist fiction is approached via ethics or poetics, as an instance.
Many have stated the irony in even endeavouring to outline postmodernism. „in fact‟, writes Todd Davis, „the
very act of defining seems to fly within the face of post modernity: can there be any unmarried, vital
definition of postmodernism?‟. Even more problematic, as Thomas Docherty notes in his advent to Ihab
Hassan‟s essay that famously gives a two
‐
column breakdown of modernism and postmodernism, such binary
comparison „is itself fairly symptomatic of a modernist tendency in the complaint: the tendency to master by
way of giving aesthetic shape (in this situation the form of a dialectical opposition) to diverse and random
materials‟ (a hundred forty-five). Even as there‟s ridiculousness to list „antifoam‟ as a character within a
smartly organized, two
‐
column binary, we think such modernist inclinations are permissible and inevitable in
a productive dialogue on postmodernism. Again, Linda Hutcheon‟s rationalization of how ideas can persist
without authoritative motive and common sense is beneficial: staying in power despite the war. Practitioners
must be given the absence of a foundation for meaning and pursue an inexpensive foundation anyway.
Dialogue of postmodernism is always on the verge of being derailed by the human need for synthesis,
linearity, and narrative, an inclination that needs to be countered sometimes to make way for the endurance of
ambiguity. So to pursue a definition of postmodernism as postmodernists, we have to be inclined to accept
into the body of postmodernist fiction both novels that reply to modernism using creating destruction with it
and those that preserve the venture of modernism by way of continuing its spirit of scepticism, but making use
of that scepticism closer to more recent grand
‐
and meta
‐
narratives. Each of the novels and novelists
significant to this thesis has a reputation for scepticism closer to the battle wherein Kurt Vonnegut served.
Then again, McHale, along with his insistence on poetic innovation as a part of a narrower definition of
postmodernist fiction, calls technological know-how fiction „the ontological genre par excellence (and thus,
the postmodernist genre par excellence) due to its premises that carry extraordinary worlds and forms of
beings into contact with each other, securing an ontological dominant. With this assessment, a controversy can
easily be made that Galapagos and Slaughterhouse-Five are the paradigmatic postmodern American take on
World War II, as Vonnegut maximum regularly blurs the road among „critical‟ fiction and technological
know-how fiction.
In the following pages, we will look at the distinct ways Galapagos and Slaughterhouse-Five gained
paradigmatic popularity as postmodern American bloodless war
‐
generation novels about World War II.
Moreover, we intend to interrogate how these differences display biases toward incomplete and exclusionary
definitions of postmodernist literature, particularly in those definitions‟ conceptions of the relationship
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
