Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Anyone who genuinely enjoys reading it is a cunt.
i'm basing my theory on the very few works of modernist literature that i have any knowledge at all about, and my general disliking for modernism as a whole
as a sweeping generalisation?
I had no idea what modernist literature was (despite working in a library). However, after checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernist_literature I'd have to disagree.
for the record i am not trying to say that it wasn't important or anything. postmodernist literature on the other hand is actually enjoyable.
* Breakdown of social norms and cultural sureties
* Dislocation of meaning and sense from its normal context
* Valorization of the despairing individual in the face of an unmanageable future
* Rejection of history and the substitution of a mythical past, borrowed without chronology
* Product of the metropolis, of cities and urbanscapes
* Stream of consciousness
* Free indirect discourse
* Overwhelming technological changes of the 20th Century
to back up your point?
i've just read Manhattan Transfer which is supposed to be 'a modernist masterpiece' and 'brilliant' etc, yet i found it so entirely boring and uninspiring that never have i spent more time getting through 360 pages.
but lots of writers i like were supposedly modernists.
people who SAY they enjoy it but DONT are pretty stupid. silly.
but they would only be proving to the world how inexcusably stupid they really are by doing that.
loving my modern literature module at the moment. so there.
is it all modernist or is it postmodern stuff as well? i'm a fan of that, you see
woolf, lawrence, conrad. that's about it. i do some postmodernism next semester. i'm also doing a module called 'lost in fiction', all about metafiction and postmodernism, which is awesome. i get to do house of leaves in it. woo woop.