Speaking of punctuation

Question

This from a book I will never buy:"People did not like. Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins did not like people; and neither was sorry."Pictures from an Institution by Randall JarrellIt's probably more postmodernist ***, done on purpose, a parody of formal punctuation, and all that.I can never enjoy a book whose punctuation pointlessly jumps up and smacks me round the chops.Simon R. Hughes(Not mentioning the "Mrs.(sic) Robbins people neither".)

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]This from a book I will never buy: "People did not like. Mrs. Robbins, Mrs. Robbins did not like people; ... and all that. I can never enjoy a book whose punctuation pointlessly jumps up and smacks me round the chops.[/nq]
Randall Jarrell knew how to punctuate. It is more charitable to assume you are looking at a typographical error. Or a bit of food stuck on the page?
Since Jarrell died in 1965, "postmodernist" would be pushing it a little.

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Donna Richoux:
[nq:2]This from a book I will never buy: "People did ... punctuation pointlessly jumps up and smacks me round the chops.[/nq]
[nq:1]Randall Jarrell knew how to punctuate. It is more charitable to assume you are looking at a typographical error. Or a bit of food stuck on the page?[/nq]
It was quoted by someone else. I'll blame her, if you insist.
[nq:1]Since Jarrell died in 1965, "postmodernist" would be pushing it a little.[/nq]
There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes, yes, and yes, given certain definitions of "postmodernism".

Simon R. Hughes

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes, yes, and yes,[/nq]
Nope, nope, and nope. They were all modern if they were anything of that sort, especially the first two.
[nq:1]given certain definitions of "postmodernism".[/nq]
Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer."
I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in Postscript to The Name of the Rose is the best. Under that definition, The Simpsons practically defines postmodernism.
If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.

Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Opus the Penguin:
[nq:2]There's postmodernism and postmodernism, though. Was Nabokov a postmodernist? James Joyce? Lawrence Sterne? Homer? Yes, yes, yes, and yes,[/nq]
[nq:1]Nope, nope, and nope.[/nq]
Which one of the four do you concede?
[nq:1]They were all modern if they were anything of that sort, especially the first two.[/nq]
Nabokov a modernist? Pastiche, collage, mongrelled genres, interpretive play, resistance to definition, decadence... the list goes on and on. Nabokov was one of the finest postmodernists.
[nq:2]given certain definitions of "postmodernism".[/nq]
[nq:1]Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer." I think Umberto Eco's definition of postmodernism in Postscript to The Name ... The Simpsons practically defines postmodernism. If you're nice to me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.[/nq]
I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember disagreeing with him, though.
The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to Virginia Woolf. She said that "human character changed" "on or about December 1910". Modernism was born, she claimed.
In 1977, Charles Jencks responded, claiming that modernism ended on 15th July 1972, at 3:32 pm. It was then that Minouru Yamasaki's Pruitt-Igoe housing project was demolished.

I don't agree with Jencks (who was probably only messing around). If literary postmodernism is a list of textual features, then there is a good case for Homer, a better one for Sterne, and a water-tight one for the later Joyce.

Simon R. Hughes

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Thus spake Opus the Penguin:[/nq]
[nq:2]Nope, nope, and nope.[/nq]
[nq:1]Which one of the four do you concede?[/nq]
Oops. Didn't see that Nabokov up front. I don't know Nabokov enough to comment.
[nq:2]They were all modern if they were anything of that sort, especially the first two.[/nq]
[nq:1]Nabokov a modernist? Pastiche, collage, mongrelled genres, interpretive play, resistance to definition, decadence... the list goes on and on. Nabokov was one of the finest postmodernists.[/nq]
Given that definition of postmodernism, I guess so. And that may be the definition that's winning out.
[nq:2]Not to mention certain definitions of "Homer." I think Umberto ... me, I'll type in the quotation when I get home.[/nq]
[nq:1]I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember disagreeing with him, though.[/nq]
I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows he cannot say to her 'I love you madly', because he knows that she knows (and that she knows that he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still, there is a solution. He can say 'As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly'. At this point, having avoided false innocence, he will nevertheless have said what he wanted to say to the woman: that he loves her in an age of lost innocence.

If the woman goes along with this, she will have received a declaration of love all the same. Neither of the two speakers will feel innocent, both will have accepted the challenge of the past, of the already said, which cannot be eliminated; both will consciously and with pleasure play the game of irony...But both will have succeeded, once again, in the speaking of love.

Modernism spelled the death of meaning, and therefore of significance. Postmodernism is a way of rolling with that punch and subversively asserting meaning and significance anyway. Hence my statement that The Simpsons is postmodern a postmodern Brady Bunch to be more specific.

Unlike other movements, postmodernism does not succeed its predecessor but exists alongside it. Indeed, postmodernism, by this definition, can't exist except in tension with modernism. If we forget the anti- significance of modernism, we no longer need to express meaning subversively.
To me, part of the essence of postmodernism is that you can't appear to take the struggle seriously. You don't appear to take anything seriously. You undercut your most serious points as a preemptive strike, and yet somehow still you make them. Whether this describes Nabokov, I don't know. It doesn't seem to me to describe Joyce or Sterne or Homer.
There are other ways of dealing with modernism, of course.

One way is to pretend it never happened. I would call this the "premodern" movement. Often this involves going back to a literally premodern time. Last decades infusion of Jane Austen based movies would be an example. (Except for Clueless which was decidedly postmodern.)

Another way is to bid open defiance to modernism, asserting meaning in the face of meaninglessness. This is done in contrast to postmodernism's slyness. The film Magnolia would be a good example of this approach.
[nq:1]The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to Virginia Woolf. She said that "human character changed" "on or ... there is a good case for Homer, a better one for Sterne, and a water-tight one for the later Joyce.[/nq]
I think your preferred definition is different from mine. I suspect yours is closer to what most academicians mean and I'm being a hopeles prescriptivist. I just find the concept Eco was getting at to be a lot more useful and deserving of its own word.
On the other hand, there's some question about whether the word means anything at all. (And if it doesn't, then modernism has won the dialectical war.) Here's a postmodern reaction to UVA philospher Richard Rorty's 1997 declaration that the word never really meant anything:
http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/humor/jones.htm

The article, or whatever you want to call it, seems more geared toward your definition of postmodernism. Maybe that makes Eco's definition really about post-postmodernism.

Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Opus the Penguin:
[nq:2]Thus spake Opus the Penguin: I've read it, but don't remember what he said. I don't remember disagreeing with him, though.[/nq]
[nq:1] I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows ... and with pleasure play the game of irony...But both will have succeeded, once again, in the speaking of love. [/nq]
This was covered by Sartre years earlier. In "What is Literature", he claimed that when you name something, you change it. Henceforth, it will not be possible to relate to what ever it is disregarding the naming. You might decide to relate to it anyway, but then you are doing so in willful defiance of the naming.
[nq:1]Modernism spelled the death of meaning, and therefore of significance.[/nq]
I would argue with that, to the extent that the New Critics (Hi, Franke) were Modernists, yet were searching for the authoritative meaning through close reading. "Grand Narratives" and all that.

In literature also, the High Modernists, such as Virginia Woolf, T.S. Eliot and James Joyce sought after meaning. Woolf looked to the mundane, leaving the question unanswered. Eliot and Joyce, however, looked to older and/ or foreign literature to underpin their work, insisting on meaningfulness.
(If it hasn't already been done, a comparison of Mrs Dalloway , in which the question of meaning in the mundane is left open, with Ulysses , in which the mythological structure insists there is a meaning in Bloom's daily life, would provide hours of fun for the whole family.)
[nq:1]Postmodernism is a way of rolling with that punch and subversively asserting meaning and significance anyway. Hence my statement that The Simpsons is postmodern a postmodern Brady Bunch to be more specific.[/nq]
Yes, but I would place the death of significance in postmodernism, as implied in the above. Postmodernism is the movement (if it is a movement) that has drawn the conclusion that meaning is dead (cf. the writings of the deconstructionists).
[nq:1]Unlike other movements, postmodernism does not succeed its predecessor but exists alongside it. Indeed, postmodernism, by this definition, can't exist except in tension with modernism. If we forget the anti- significance of modernism, we no longer need to express meaning subversively.[/nq]
See the Sartre thing above. We can't ignore it now it's been named. If we purposefully ignore it, we are still acknowledging it by the snub.
[nq:1]To me, part of the essence of postmodernism is that you can't appear to take the struggle seriously. You don't ... them. Whether this describes Nabokov, I don't know. It doesn't seem to me to describe Joyce or Sterne or Homer.[/nq]
It certainly does describe Sterne. And Cervantes, come to think of it. If Joyce's later work, ostensibly Finnegans Wake , is taken seriously, it is a sad testiment to the academy. He plays!

Perhaps Homer doesn't play. It's difficult to tell when his hero is called Hector.
[nq:1]There are other ways of dealing with modernism, of course. One way is to pretend it never happened.[/nq]
Sartre.
[nq:1]I would call this the "premodern" movement. Often this involves going back to a literally premodern time. Last decades infusion of Jane Austen based movies would be an example. (Except for Clueless which was decidedly postmodern.)[/nq]
Didn't I mention nostalgia? That's another feature.

Bruno Latour claims that we have never been modern (in his book, the translation of which is entitled We Have Never Been Modern ). He claims that we are still living in the Enlightenment. It's been too long since I read it for me to remember what I thought of his argument. (It's also been not long enough since I read it; he is, after all, a French theorist, and I am trying to give them up, fertile for thought as their writings may be.)
[nq:1]Another way is to bid open defiance to modernism, asserting meaning in the face of meaninglessness. This is done in contrast to postmodernism's slyness. The film Magnolia would be a good example of this approach.[/nq]
Sartre again.
[nq:2]The definition I really like, however, is a reaction to ... for Sterne, and a water-tight one for the later Joyce.[/nq]
[nq:1]I think your preferred definition is different from mine. I suspect yours is closer to what most academicians mean and ... want to call it, seems more geared toward your definition of postmodernism. Maybe that makes Eco's definition really about post-postmodernism.[/nq]
No, I think the term is such a hold-all that there is room for everything. I don't see any inconsistency between Eco's example and the textual features I listed. Do we need a new term? No, we can just pretend the term was never invented, and talk about it anyway.
Jean Paul Sartre is my accuser.

Simon R. Hughes

Usenet · Answer

Apropos of nothing, I noticed that 'hoyden' comes from the Dutch 'heiden'. Is there a similar word in Dutch today? The etymology for 'hoity-toity' suggests 'hoyden', but I can't imagine they use it.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Apropos of nothing, I noticed that 'hoyden' comes from the Dutch 'heiden'. Is there a similar word in Dutch today?[/nq]
No. M-W says that meaning is obsolete Dutch. Van Dale says that nowadays there's "heiden" meaning "heathen," also "heide" meaning "heathland" or "heath plant."

Best Donna Richoux

Speaking of punctuation

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions