Optimistic attempt to explain postmodernism

[caliburncy]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> All assistance from people who've actually studied postmodernism
> properly in literatuve classes welcome... (Luke??)

Nope, sorry, not me.  I have (currently) not formally studied 
postmodernism and my understanding of it therefore is very much a 
layman's understanding based on things I have read.  Where literature 
is concerned, I really have a better handle on modernism and 
deconstructionism and all things preceeding them--but even in these 
realms my understanding is based upon a (perhaps slightly above 
average) amount of reading on the subjects (i.e. some critical 
analyses and theories), not much in the way of formal education.  
Really, my biggest area of interest is in none of these things, but 
in story-telling, which, frankly, is hardly the domain of any of the 
above.  Incidentally, this is why I often include a disclaimer before 
I start espousing my opinions on any form of literary analysis, 
because I do not claim to be (nor do I wish to be) an accredited and 
authoritative pundit.  I am just a guy who reads, and who subscribes 
to the opinion that analysis is the domain of anyone, not just the 
fellow with most prestigious-looking font-type on his degree.  So I 
tend to find myself agreeing with authors moreso than critics--
although interestingly enough, I probably agree with critics moreso 
than the general population does.

Anyway, this is besides the point.  Anyone wishing to supplement 
their understanding of postmodernism in general (far beyond just the 
realm of literature), might try the essay below.  Which is not to say 
that I personally either agree or disagree with this essay (although 
I will admit that I find occasional elements of it to be a bit 
pretentious due to the author), only that I find it to be fairly 
representative of postmodernist thinking (of course, someone more 
familiar with postmodernism than I might pick up many discrepancies 
that would escape my notice), and gives a reasonable history and 
background that should be fairly sufficient for someone unfamiliar 
with the referenced texts, even though it does not appear to be 
designed with the layman in mind.  It's not perfect, or even good, 
just serviceable . . . and I have no doubt there's a better overview 
out there somewhere, but I'm too lazy to find it.  When you get 
bored, you can just stop--the most relevant stuff for our discussion 
here is toward the beginning, I think:

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/education/jlemke/papers/jsalt.htm


Also of some interest, though I think of lesser assistance (since it 
focuses on anthropology and is generally more poorly constructed), 
might be:

http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm


Of course, I have no doubt that the only way to truly understand 
postmodernism (or any critical theory, for that matter) is through 
the primary sources of the movement's "leaders", not through this 
kind of interpretive, overview stuff.  Looking at the primary sources 
would doubtless reveal that postmodernism, as such, has no single 
source but is a collective mishmash of the writings of various 
scholars, and hence, no single, accurate definition or movement or 
school of thought.  To discuss postmodernism in general is probably 
less enlightening than to discuss, for example, the writings of 
Lyotard specifically in addition to the writings of Foucalt 
specifically in addition to . . .

But hey! I have better things to do.  No offense to the 
postmodernists.

-Luke