URTH |
From: "Daniel Fusch" <dfusch@hotmail.com> Subject: (urth) Modernism Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 00:24:12 PDT OK, now that I've confused myself as to who has posted which messages, I'll address this reply to alga. alga, I agree with several things you said. I think Wolfe's work is likely to last into the next century, although it is unlikely that he will receive much in the way of critical attention for some time to come. I think the work of writers like Walter A. Miller, Jr., Ray Bradbury, and Ursula K. LeGuin will also last into posterity, since they are also authors who experiment with different forms of storytelling. These authors are also--incidentally--taught in today's college lit classes. And I think it very likely that some of the science fiction "classics" will last as "relics" of the past...at least for a little while. For example, Asimov's "Foundation" is probably here to stay, whether or not we agree with its "literary merit" (if such a thing can be defined), since that work defined a generation of speculative literature. Certain films--"Things to Come" and "2001: A Space Odyssey"--will be a matter of speculation throughout the ages; "Things to Come" remains a frequent film for British lit courses even sixty years after its first appearance. I should add, though, that I think these relics remain because people like to read/watch them, not simply because they supply us with information about the literary/historical traditions of their time. So I don't think Wolfe is the only writer who will survive. Of course, in centuries to come, who knows who will remain? Homer's work, after all, comes to us completely isolated from its literary tradition. Interesting to speculate, anyway! You said something else that caught my interest: (snip) "Daniel Fusch brings up--re the inconsistent or unreliable narrator (Sev) that we've been discussing--the modernist novel. Well, actually, that's not quite accurate, as he brings up -Moby-Dick- and -Paradise Lost- too. But I think that M-D can stand as a modernist novel ahead of its time, and Milton was certainly striving to do something different with PL. The point, and the Faulkner novel is included here, is the effort toward originality." I think I will agree with you, in saying that Moby Dick is, in many ways, a modernist novel before its time. I think I would call it a tragic romance told via a modernist nature (there's a hybrid for you!). Modernism deals almost exclusively with the Everyman--the ordinary, everyday character with the ordinary, everyday life, with the ordinary, everyday romance, tragedy, and fall. The traditional tragic romance, on the other hand, deals with the decline and fall of some larger-than-life figure (Macbeth, for instance). Moby Dick has as its main character Ahab, the larger-than-life captain who will sacrifice his ship, his life, his soul...in battle against the Unconquerable, against the Infinite. Yet the narration is distinctly modernist--Melville experiments with different modes of storytelling, and Ishmael--whose identity we never learn much about--is a modernist (and, in part, unreliable) narrator. I think "The Book of the New Sun" is like this, also. Wolfe presents us with a romance (or a fantasy, if you prefer the modern time), in which a torturer's apprentice becomes a king. This is a very familiar, conventional plot--the tailor who becomes a prince, the girl with the ash-covered face who marries the prince, the pauper who becomes king, etc. But the narration is modernist, experimental. We might call Melville's "Moby Dick" a proto-modernist work (did you know that only some 20 copies a year were published at first...the novel vanished into obscurity until the 1920s, when the modernists discovered it). It is perhaps too tempting to label Wolfe "post-modernist." One surmises that the author of The Book of the New Sun is well aware of postmodernity--certainly Wolfe is writing metafiction in one sense--although I would argue that metafiction is more an outgrowth of modernism than it is a branch of post-modernism. Faulkner wrote metafiction. For that matter, metafiction has existed in one form or another since the eighteenth century (Henry Fielding comes to mind). (Metafiction, by the way--for those of you who are unfamiliar with the term--is fiction that intentionally draws attention to the methods by which it works, in order to investigate or examine the nature of fiction--the nature of storytelling). Post-modernism is really extremely difficult to define--it is that work which is "beyond modernism" (it makes more sense when you apply the term to post-colonial writings), and the term usually seems to include both deconstructionism and metafiction. In the end, I think it safe to assume that The Book of the New Sun is more modernist than post-modernist. The fascination with the nature of Time, the experimental narration, the tendency toward metafiction, the cyclical beginning/ending (reminiscent of James Joyce), and the presentation of different forms of narrative (i.e., Foila's Contest) without a final judgement on them (reminiscent of "The Sound and the Fury" -- in which all four (or five) perspectives are equally important and equally close/distant from the Truth or the Whole of the story) -- all these seem to fit Wolfe's work into a modernist niche. It is difficult to label "The Book of the New Sun" that easily, however. One must keep in mind that it fits within many traditions. It is a heroic romance, it is a mythopoeic work, it is a modernist work, and it is also a work of science fiction. Maybe assigning one label to the book would deprive it of its totality--would allow us to look at only one part of the whole. That, of course, is a distinctly modernist thought. =) Well, that's what I've been pondering. Any thoughts? Daniel ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/