Scan barcode
gusabus's review
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
A wonderful introduction into what exactly postmodernism entails. McHale is extremely eloquent, explaining his thoughts on the subject clearly and at length, with plenty of examples from relevant literature. For the first time I have a clear idea of what it means when something is "postmodernist", and how I can identify those features within a text.
archmageofthearchive's review
4.0
If you had asked me before I started graduate school what I would actually focus on in my dissertation, I would not have said anything having to do with postmodern literature. This is compounded by the fact that I have never taken a class on postmodern literature. And yet, here I am.
Fortunately, McHale manages the seemingly impossible: in the aftermath of dense theorists like Derrida, and amidst contemporaries like Foucault and D.A. Miller, McHale manages to be lucid and readable. Equally impressive is that he is writing about postmodernism but, unlike Frederick Jameson, McHale can actually present a clear thesis and write about it legibly.
This book is excellent. There are some examples that would probably make more sense to me if I had read the specific novels or stories, McHale does a very good job making his points accessible. He's also a generous critic; writing in a decade when fantasy and science fiction were on the rise but frequently lambasted by academics (sadly still the case, in some instances), he openly and gladly embraces them as legitimate forms of literature and contributors to the ongoing and developing literary tradition. And his arguments, at least in their specific applications, are very persuasive.
That brings us to the book's one major failing: the central thesis. McHale argues that postmodernism is defined best by a turn towards ontology, meaning postmodernist texts differentiate themselves from Modernist (and others, ostensibly) texts by an interest in making/bending/shaping/reading reality. On the one hand, this is interesting and, in so many cases, very persuasive. Certainly, when I think of texts that I feel are the most definitive of the postmodern movement (Crying of Lot 49; Pale Fire; etc.), this seems like a perfect description. However, the broader scope of postmodern texts complicates this definition. Furthermore, while I can believe in it as a (sometimes) defining trait of the main pillars of postmodernism, I'm not satisfied that it doesn't apply to many modernist texts as well.
And really, that's fine – no critic has ever offered a totalizing argument for anything that successfully held up against scrutiny. But it is a big enough flaw that it does hold McHale back from a full five stars.
Still, if you have any interest in postmodern literature or just an interest in poetics, I highly recommend this book.
Fortunately, McHale manages the seemingly impossible: in the aftermath of dense theorists like Derrida, and amidst contemporaries like Foucault and D.A. Miller, McHale manages to be lucid and readable. Equally impressive is that he is writing about postmodernism but, unlike Frederick Jameson, McHale can actually present a clear thesis and write about it legibly.
This book is excellent. There are some examples that would probably make more sense to me if I had read the specific novels or stories, McHale does a very good job making his points accessible. He's also a generous critic; writing in a decade when fantasy and science fiction were on the rise but frequently lambasted by academics (sadly still the case, in some instances), he openly and gladly embraces them as legitimate forms of literature and contributors to the ongoing and developing literary tradition. And his arguments, at least in their specific applications, are very persuasive.
That brings us to the book's one major failing: the central thesis. McHale argues that postmodernism is defined best by a turn towards ontology, meaning postmodernist texts differentiate themselves from Modernist (and others, ostensibly) texts by an interest in making/bending/shaping/reading reality. On the one hand, this is interesting and, in so many cases, very persuasive. Certainly, when I think of texts that I feel are the most definitive of the postmodern movement (Crying of Lot 49; Pale Fire; etc.), this seems like a perfect description. However, the broader scope of postmodern texts complicates this definition. Furthermore, while I can believe in it as a (sometimes) defining trait of the main pillars of postmodernism, I'm not satisfied that it doesn't apply to many modernist texts as well.
And really, that's fine – no critic has ever offered a totalizing argument for anything that successfully held up against scrutiny. But it is a big enough flaw that it does hold McHale back from a full five stars.
Still, if you have any interest in postmodern literature or just an interest in poetics, I highly recommend this book.
meganmilks's review
4.0
excellent study of pomo except: too much pynchon not enough acker. no acker at all, in fact! but, to his credit, discusses in detail cortazar and angela carter, neither of whom get enough cred amid the coover and the pynchon.
More...