 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
In order to fully understand what the contemporary American women writers Louise Erdrich, Lorrie Moore, and Carole Maso are appropriating, extending, or revising in their novels, we must first see what the forebears of this type of writing were doing. To begin, I wish to offer a brief synopsis of several theorists and theories associated with "postmodernism" in order to establish the theoretical framework out of which postmodern writers emerged. Then, I move to "case studies," Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita, John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse, and Ishmael Reed's Mumbo Jumbo, to illustrate how the theories of postmodernism are manifest in three texts of the literary movement called "Postmodernism" in American literature. Thus, the section entitled "Postmodernism in Theory" offers a cursory account of several main ideas of postmodernism; "Postmodernism in Practice" shows the literary/aesthetic application of those ideas.
Of course, neither section is an exhaustive study, nor is meant to be. Instead, the purpose of the two following sections is twofold: one, to provide a context out of which the discussion of postmodernism in the novels of Erdrich, Moore, and Maso can begin; two, to outline the literary project of the male writers of the movement, traditionally thought of as comprising the "Postmodern Canon," in order to serve as a comparison with the women writers in my study and to highlight these women's contribution to postmodernist fiction.
This chapter concludes with "Postmodernism Today," a discussion which serves to link the male postmodern writers to the female writers found in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. In this section, I outline some of the similarities found among the male and female writers and then delineate the ways in which the female writers depart from or extend the "traditional" postmodern project. I also cite research of postmodern theorists who claim that postmodernism is not simply a negative and deconstructive approach to literature but one that is affirming of "differences" and liberating.
Postmodernism in Theory
"What is postmodernism?" This question has plagued many a critic, student, reader, and author, alike. Most theorists have their own working definition. Whatever the conclusion, one thing is certain--"postmodernism" is not easily or neatly definable. From Frederic Jameson to Jean-Francois Lyotard, many philosophers and theorists have added something to the discussion, but not one has offered the definitive definition. Larry McCaffery, in the introduction to Postmodern Fiction: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide, explains the problem with coming to such a definitive definition and offers a reasonable approach to the question of postmodernism:
This volume does not develop such a definition simply because postmodernism is, in fact, not a unified movement but a term that serves most usefully as a general signifier rather than a sign with a stable meaning...Getting a sense of what does constitute postmodernism is perhaps best approached in the same way readers should approach one of Faulkner's multi-narrated novels: one reads one section, one tendency, one subjective opinion to get a feel for the territory and then one moves on into another expanse, examines that area for its distinctive features and so on. (xi-xii)
Following McCaffery's advice, I will offer a few notable definitions and/or qualities of postmodernism that have emerged in recent years in order to "give a sense" of what the term implies. In any case, it seems more fruitful to speak of these qualities as "tendencies" rather than hard and fast rules.
By discussing one theorist's major contribution to the discussion and then moving on to the next, I arrive at a list of qualities that I will use in my discussion of both the male and female authors. Like Linda Hutcheon, in "Beginning to Theorize Postmodernism," I would like to offer a "poetics of postmodernism" here, which "would not posit any relation of causality or identity...between art and theory. It would merely offer, as provisional hypothesis, perceived overlappings of concern" (12). The artists and the theorists certainly have an interaction that is "a complex one of shared responses and common provocations"(12); I will map these commonalities by picking key points from certain theorists in this section and then showing how these concerns are translated into aesthetic practice, particularly in American postmodernist fiction, in the following section. Again, I do not mean to suggest a cause-effect relationship, but a simultaneity and congruity of ideas and practices among the theorists and the artists.
Though varied and multiple meanings of the term arise, one can glean certain trends or leanings in any discussion on postmodernism. Most commonly, postmodern theory is "usually accompanied by a grand flourish of negativized rhetoric: we hear of discontinuity, disruption, dislocation, decentering, indeterminacy and anti-totalization" (Hutcheon "Beginning" 10). The key terms or phrases used to capture the ideas in the preceding list are parody, pastiche, and intertextuality, the simulacrum, the mistrust of totalizing narratives or metanarratives, the fragmentation of the self, multiplicity and heterogeneity, the impossibility of representation and the instability of language. It is important, and vital to my thesis, to realize the negative, somewhat nihilistic, tendencies in postmodern theorizing as the male postmodern writers seem to reflect this attitude in their literary texts.
In that vein, I have pared down the possible list of theorists/theories to the following discussion of key terms/ideas, which will give an adequate picture of the certain tendencies in postmodern thought pertinent to my argument. In particular, this section will focus on the distrust of grand narratives /metanarratives and intertextuality; these two main ideas are the springboard for many of the other key concepts in postmodern theory such as parody, pastiche, fragmentation, indeterminacy, and simulacra.
To begin the discussion, many theorists include in their theories of postmodernism a distrust of grand narratives or metanarratives. The theorist Jean-Francois Lyotard introduced this idea in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarrative" (xxiv). A metanarrative is any grand narrative or system that is used to legitimate knowledge or makes a claim to universal truth. The tendency towards legitimizing metanarratives is characteristic of the modern period. In fact, Lyotard defines the term modern as follows:
I will use the term modern to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse...making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of the Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject or the creation of wealth. (xxiii)
Modernism, then, embraces totalizing narratives that legitimize a unified, rational subject, coherent meaning, and totalizing knowledge or truth.
Whereas in the postmodern condition, there is skepticism towards this kind of claim to "truth" or totalizing system. In terms of the self, there is no "always already" subject position from which to speak, as the subject is simply a construction of language and culture: "[a] self does not amount to much, but no self is an island; each exists in a fabric of relations that is now more complex and mobile than ever before" (Lyotard 34-35). One cannot maintain a static self, as it is always in flux. Any system that reduces human subjectivity and the "self" to neat, tight categories of being is unreliable. There is no longer any cohesive, coherent or totalizing narrative. Truth is not universal, but local.
Madan Sarup, in An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism, further explains Lyotard's discussion on metanarrative: "The advent of postmodernity signals a crisis in a narrative's legitimizing function, its ability to compel consensus" (132). And this failure to compel consensus results in a renegotiation of all grand narratives. No longer do the unified subject and his unified narrative hold credibility. In fiction, then, we have an explosion of the subject and of form to accommodate the postmodern condition. Narrative is no longer straight and linear. It is disrupted and fragmentary in nature. Authors begin to question the status of characters and vice versa. The persona of the author emerges as a character in the text who critiques the narrative from within and without the text. Characters themselves are constantly questioning and critiquing their function in the world-of the-text and their position in the world-at-large. The presence of the author and the idea that narrative is simply a construction are foregrounded in postmodern fiction. And, consequently, narrative truth is presented as questionable and unreliable.
This questioning of grand narratives and the realization that identity, representation, and the world are constructs leads to the advent of the simulacrum. Jean Baudrillard, in "The Precession of Simulacra" defines the function of the simulacrum in these postmodern times: "simulation...is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal" (2). No longer is there a "real" that we can embrace; even though we model our own subjectivities and narratives on the real, it is only an "imagined real." In fact, we find that the real has never existed but only it's image; this is the simulacrum. Baudrillard explains that it is not simply imitation but "substituting signs of the real for the real itself" (3). This, consequently, leads to feelings of alienation; power, truth, and knowledge all come into question. What is real? Do we live in a patriarchal society? Are white males the sanctioned heirs to dominance and privilege? What does it mean to be a woman or African-American? These signifiers--"white," "male," "woman," "African-American"--suddenly seem questionable and, in turn, negotiable. Therefore, the simulacrum can be a very disturbing prospect to those who embraced the modernist subject and his "real" status in the world; the simulacrum has the potential of undermining all human action and experience.
In literary fiction, the realization of the simulacrum leads to uncertainty, confusion, and even despair. Authors are now aware that the metanarratives of modernist fiction cannot adequately reflect the attitudes of the postmodern writer. Narrative, in postmodern fiction, is often non-linear, non-rational, indeterminate, and open-ended. Furthermore, characters within these narratives cannot claim a unified and coherent subjectivity because the author cannot claim that for himself! Therefore, character and narrative become fragmented to accommodate this new "reality" of the postmodern situation: "It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal" (Baudrillard 3).
Along with the distrust of metanarratives, and all that implies, is another central idea in postmodern theory--intertextuality. Intertextuality is achieved through pastiche and parody. Frederic Jameson, in Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, insists that in the postmodern condition we can no longer embrace the ideological and unified narratives of the past. These narratives have lost all meaning and power. Jameson explains that "the modernist aesthetic was organically linked to the conception of an authentic self and a private identity which can be expected to generate its own unique vision of the world and to forge its own unmistakable style" (Sarup 133). These modernist tropes mean nothing in the postmodern world. They have lost all efficacy and potency.
Unfortunately, according to Jameson, the postmodernists replaced this ideological foundation and deeply personal style with merely a surface, an imitation of style, which is in fact depthless: "depth is replaced by surface, or by multiple surfaces (what is often called intertextuality is in that sense no longer a matter of depth)" (12). The postmodern aesthetic embraces "pastiche" or an "imitation of dead styles" (18) since the achievement of a unique and personal style is impossible. Therefore, postmodern art is simply a piecemeal regurgitation of past forms, empty and signifying nothing.
Linda Hutcheon, on the other hand, replaces the term pastiche with "parody," which is always political. As postmodernism is "fundamentally contradictory, resolutely historical and inescapably political" (11), parody is "a perfect postmodernist form in some senses, for it paradoxically both incorporates and challenges that which it parodies" (18). It is not simply an empty imitation nor is it "a nostalgic return; it is a critical revisiting, an ironic dialogue with the past of both art and society" (11). She calls this kind of postmodern fiction, which uses intertextuality through parody, "historiographic metafiction." This kind of fiction has "a theoretical self-awareness of history and fiction as human constructs...is made the ground for its rethinking and re-working of the forms and contents of the past" (12). The postmodernist novel extends forms (genres, narratives, etc.) and uses them to critique from within those forms and show the inappropriateness of those forms. It works "within conventions in order to subvert them" (12). In many postmodern novels, genre and narrative are reminiscent of the past and yet being critiqued and revised to adjust to postmodern concerns. Therefore, intertextuality, through what we call parody or pastiche, is a highly effective and reflective postmodern strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
