this was said by Peter Sloane, BA, MPhil, current phd in postmodern literature.

nu jaa, postpostmodernisms, bet tas taa stulbi, it kaa cilveece vairs nekad nebuutu speejiiga uz neko origjinaalu, un izmanototu jau iepriekshradiitus, vecus vaardus un fraazes un konceptus. atkal kaut kaads sirreaalisms bezjeedziigs, un kur tas virzaas? ai, man buutu tik interesanti dzirdeet Piitera viedokli, jo man pashai shkjiet, ka Modernisms bija peedeejais labais literaarais novirziens, un viss paareejais ir tikai kaut kaads passive agressive ruugtums.

Humanity has never been capable of originality, since the beginning of language everything is already present. Why does it need to be going somewhere, each generation is new, they just recycle old stuff. You don't need to reinvent anything, everything is new for each individual being (for someone who hasn't read Plato he is new so he doesn't need to be reinvented). And, because everything is mediated via text an I for instance only have access to Plato, and Thomas Pynchon via text, there cannot possibly be any distinction between those two and therefore there cannot be any progress from one to another because they always both exist in the eternal textual present. Modernism was the hyper indignant angry bitter movement so you know that's just not true(about post modernism). Postmodernism was antifascist, antisexist, antiracist, antipower and the reason it was so because all other discourses including modernism still speak from conventional white middle class perspectives whereas postmodernism told us that all those concepts were only language constructs. -Peter

nee nu bet tad tu pasaki Piiteram, ka modernisms vismaz, lai arii pompozs, vismaz bija entuziastisks un dzidrs. bet post un postpost-modernismi ir taadi lukewarm, un pat new sincerety ir kaut kas aizdomiigs un lauzoshs. man vienkaarshi shkjiet, ka cilveeki taa arii nekad nedabuuja nekaadu closure un cure prieksh 20. gs saakuma tragjeedijaam, bet to kaut kur apraka sarkasmaa un satiiraa.

jā, par to 20. gs. trakumu, tas ir gandrīz kā kādas spēcīgas traumas gadījumā, kad pārdzīvojums ir bijis tik ievērojams, ka smadzenes izvēlās to izdzēst, noslēpt, neatcerēties. un jā, vēsturnieki, pētnieki un cilvēki par to ir radījuši tonnām literatūras, bet tik un tā var redzēt, ka mēs atrodamies konstantā vārdu badā un neziņā, nespējot aprakstīt - reaģēt uz ko tādu.

Vins saka aptuveni (parfrazejot un interpretejot) ka tu varbut doma, ka postmodernisms ir cinisks, bet ta nav. Skatoties no ta punkta, kur tas sakas tas ir par fun un rotaljam ar valodu un narrative un how it relates to being. Vins saka ka post modern novels are fun, experimental, eclectic things. Postmodernism hasn't actually got much to do with the war,, it has more to do with eclectic culture, information, data, replication, copying, montages, blending of history, blending of all boundaries, collage, porousness or borders. Sounds like you've been reading Jamesons cultural logic of late capitalism whih is a marxist interpretation of postmodernism. And any political perspective on postmodernism is necessarily biased because postmodernism was predicated on the death of meta narratives such as marxism. Maybe you have been somehow confusing poststructural philosophy or theory with postmodern literature, theyre similar and founded on the same kinds of philosophies e.g. Nietzhe Heidegger WIttgenstein but postmodern literature is much less overtly political. So for example Pynchon one of the earliest postmodernist authors, he just wanted to point out how realist and modernist works tried to create the illusion that ordered reality was replicable in text. Modernism has probably created the saddest collection o texts of any genre or movement (anything by Kafka, Beckett, Woolf, Joyce, Conrad, Hemingway). And look up the first sentence of The Good Soldier by Ford, the first line of Pruf rock by Elliott, which are classic formative modernist works. After reading those first lines, have a look at any review of any classic postmodern novel ie - The Sot Weed Factor or Giles Goatboy by Barth, anything by Thomas Pynchon or Coover and I guarantee that each one will say in one form or another "a comic masterpiece". And that's true -postmodern novels are funny, witty, whereas modernist novels are brilliant but depressing. If you write an essay on this feel free to send it I'll read it.

pasaki Piiteram paldies par vinja insights un titles, es to pierakstiishu blocinjaa. es vienkaarshi gribeeju uzzinaat, kur ir taa robezha, kur viss modernisma dramatiskums un collapse paarveertaas par comic relief, varbuut ar taam montaazhaam. man laikam veel jaaizdziivojas liidz postmodernismam, un man jau dramatiska melanholija un memoires involuntaires vienmeer bijushas tuvas. un tas buutu nereaali kruta, ja vinjsh vareetu izlasiit manu modernisma eseju kaut kad maijaa. tavs boifrends ir ljoti izdeviigs!

tiesa, Žižeks un citi marksisti norādītu, ka izteikums "but postmodern literature is much less overtly political" vai "And any political perspective on postmodernism is necessarily biased.." ir tipiski ideoloģiski un, protams, politiski izteikumi, tipiska bourgeois taisnošanās un lietu nesaukšana īstajos vārdos , tādējādi nodrošinot false consciousness. un to visu summarizējot, ka 'postmodern novels are funny, witty' , spēles, just for fun, galvošana, ka 'to jau nevar ņemt par pilnu', utt, well, tas viss ir ideology and politics at it's purest.