Literature after Postmodernism: Reconstructive Fantasies

Postmodernism, deconstruction and subversion have been the buzzwords of the last few decades. But not any longer. Ever since the end of the millennium an increasingly perceptible desire to turn towards other concerns can be noted. Only, what comes after postmodernism? Where are we going now? Irmtraud Huber suggests some answers to these questions, focusing on novels by Michael Chabon, Mark Z. Danielewski, Jonathan Safran Foer and David Mitchell and highlighting the ways in which they go beyond postmodernism and turn from deconstruction to reconstruction. Approaching the question from an unusual direction by exploring the novelists' particular use of the fantastic mode, this book offers both further insights into the present aesthetic shift and a new perspective on the literary fantastic.

Unnatural Narration beyond Postmodernist Alterities

Postmodernism has frequently employed unnatural narration with the aim to disturb and subvert conventionalized reading practices. Postmodernist discourses thus widely associate the unnatural with alterity, marginality and the suppressed. In this paper, I caution against such a perspective, which threatens to unduly limit our understanding of the broad variety of relations between natural and unnatural narrative on the one hand, and of the multiple possible functions of unnatural narratives on the other. Taking my cue from the use of unnatural narration in a number of recent novels, like Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves (2000), Michael Chabon’s Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (2000), or Yann Martel’s Life of Pi (2001), I will argue that a postmodernist approach which foregrounds ontological and epistemological questions and emphasizes alterity and subversion remains blind to some of the pragmatic implications that are the main concern of the unnatural narratives under consideration. This not only begs the question whether and in how far such a shift from ontological and epistemological towards pragmatic concerns constitutes a move beyond postmodernism, but also calls for a reconsideration of some of our widely established theories and assumptions about unnatural narratives.

On the Limits of Greenwich Mean Time, or The Failure of a Modernist Revolution

On the Limits of Greenwich Mean Time, or The Failure of a Modernist Revolution From the introduction of World Standard Time in 1884 to Einstein’s theory of relativity, the nature and regulation of time was a highly contested issue in modernism, with profound political, social and epistemological consequences. Modernist aesthetic sensibilities widely revolted against the increasingly strict rule of the clock, which, as Georg Simmel observed in “The Metropolis and Mental Life,” was established as the necessary basis of a capitalist, urban life. This paper will focus on the contending conceptions of time arising in key modernist texts by authors like Joyce, Woolf and Conrad. I will argue that the uniformity and regularity of time necessary to a rising capitalist society came under attack in a similar way by both modernist literary aesthetics and new scientific discoveries. However, while Einstein’s theory of relativity may have led to a subsequent change of paradigm in scientific thought, it has failed to significantly alter social and popular conceptions of time. Although alternative ways of thinking and living with time are proposed by modernist authors, they remain isolated aesthetic experiments, ineffectual against the regulatory pressure of economic and social structures. In this struggle about the nature of time, so I suggest, science and literature join force against a society that is increasingly governed by economic reason. The fact that they lost this struggle can serve as a striking illustration of an increasing shift of social influence from science and art towards economy.