|
blue squares posted:How about short fiction? I would say that Rainbow Stories by William T. Vollman qualifies to some extent, and it's very good. Also, Lost in the Funhouse by John Barth. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jun 22, 2014 |
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Not liking Vonnegut will immediately put someone into the "untrustworthy and probably dangerous" zone for me Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? He may have been a decent man or whatever but I don't see how not being into his writing makes anyone untrustworthy or dangerous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
amuayse posted:Is it a reoccurring theme to blur the line between science fiction and real life in postmodern literature? That is an interesting question.. a couple years ago I read Chronic City by Jonathan Lethem which I would say is somewhat postmodern and also is really not a "scifi" book in any sense, but scifi elements sort of creep into the book as it goes along. But only in a way that is still somewhat plausible in early 21st century NYC and also in a way that causes us to ask if it even matters. Unfortunately it's not a very good book though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:It's a postmodern novel that got popular so goons hate it. There are way more goons who love that book than who hate it 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
There are a lot of much worse books out there than House of Leaves and parts of it are decently entertaining, but the writing is indeed bad and really the whole thing is just Borges fanfiction. Which I guess is somewhat unique.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
blue squares posted:This is stupid and so is the assertion that House of Leaves is Borges fanfiction. I'm not commenting on the quality of the work but trying to discount artistic influences as just "fanfiction" is so silly. That was probably a dumb way to put it, I admit. But it seemed conceptually more derivative to me than something just "influenced" by Borges, and the prose itself was often pretty bad. Shakespeare is of course extremely derivative as well and borrowed entire plots and concepts wholesale from other sources. But the difference is that he is a very good, clever, and entertaining writer. Danielewski is not. It doesn't matter that the plot of a typical Shakespeare play is predictable and pretty much already known at the outset, or that it often relies so heavily on established stories and concepts, because the appeal of his work IMO is the language itself. With House of Leaves, all it really has going for it is the concept, so when that part of it is also very derivative, its just kind of not great. But like I said before, parts of it are entertaining and theres certainly much worse out there. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
If you liked A Scanner Darkly you will love VALIS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Postmodernism is also a time period. But whether viewed as a period or a movement, it doesn't really make sense to say that Don Quixote was part of it. Just because the book shares some traits with works that we call postmodern doesn't mean that it comes from the era or that it was any sort of reaction to modernism. However your followup question doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Whether or not Cervantes' genius is "timeless" has nothing to do with whether or not the book is postmodern. Since the book is still successful and influential today, I'd say sure, you can call it timeless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
related, a while ago I read The Death and Life of Miguel de Cervantes by Stephen Marlowe and thought it was A Good Time. and also has many traits of postmodernism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I might attempt House of Leaves one day if I run out of other horror, but I just wonder 'Why not just concentrate on telling a good story instead of (what seems to be) disguising an okay story with weird book layouts and fonts?' I think what he was trying to do was create a book that was the sort of object one would encounter in a Borges story. Which I think is a fine goal even if he didn't pull it off entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Has anyone brought up the point that Trump is peak post-modernity yet? While it's nice to believe that politicians should be competent as well as have an appealing image, Trump's presidency seems to show that all that counts is the latter. That's hardly new. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger were celebrities elected as governor of California mostly due to their fame, neither had any real prior political experience
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Trump isn't like those candidates and you know it. At least Schwarzenegger and Raegan had a consistent message. No he's not the same as those candidates but the phenomenon is largely the same. I was living in California during Schwarzenegger's election and entirely regardless of his message a shitload of people came out to vote for him because he's The Terminator. I gaurantee you the average Schwarzenegger voter at that time could not have described any of his policies, it was a total circus. Electric Owl posted:And anyways, just because it isn't new doesn't make it not interesting dicknut Sure it's interesting, my point is that it's a common phenomenon and I don't see how it's "peak" post-modernism or even unique to the post-modern period. Politicians are getting better and better at manipulating the mass media, sure, but in general people rising to power based on their fame and personal charm instead of substantive ideas or competence is as old as politics itself. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 07:38
|
|