Page 208 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 208
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
beginning that, by ‘late modernism,’ I refer to the literary paradigm of
the post-World War II era that spans between 1945 and 1965/1970 and in
which originate authors such as Ezra Pound—with The Pisan Cantos—,
William Carlos Williams—with Paterson—, Charles Olson, Paul Celan,
J.W. Prynne, Samuel Beckett—with Malone Dies—, John Barth—with
The Floating Opera—, Thomas Pynchon—with V.—, Alejo Carpentier—
with his first novels— and most of the representatives of the French Nou-
veau Roman—Alain Robbe-Grillet, Michel Butor, Claude Simon, etc. In
short, my understanding of the term ‘late modernism’ is closer to that of
Anthony Mellors, who limits it to the postwar period, rather than Tyrus
Miller, who associates it with the interwar years.
Second, I find it fit to indicate the scope of my comparison: it does
208 not, in any way, seek to provide artificial symmetrical oppositions the
likes of West vs. East or First World vs. Second World. In fact, that would
be an exercise in futility, as, unlike Kermode’s neomodernism, late mod-
ernism is not limited to what was then known as the First World, being
witnessed in Third World countries such as Brazil too (Coutinho 2007,
762). On the other hand, it is also true that late modernism cannot be
construed outside a three-world model: “Late modernism is a product of
Cold War, but in all kinds of complicated ways” (Jameson 2002, 165).
Consequently, what I hope to achieve through this comparison is to as-
sess the extent to which socialist modernism qualifies not as an alternate
model, but as a specific form of late modernism.
Lastly, it should be noted that my typological model draws mainly on
Mellors’ set of characteristics, with a few additions from Jameson, Ker-
mode and Brian McHale. Thus, the relation between the two paradigms
appears as follows:3
3 Being fully aware that an appropriate circumscription of late modernism ex-
ceeds the scope of a single article—not to mention a single endnote—, I will
nevertheless try to preclude some of the confusions which might occur in the
understanding of this concept:
1) As the successor of high, i.e. first, interwar modernism—illustrated by au-
thors such as T.S. Eliot, Gottfried Benn, Paul Valéry, Federico García Lor-
ca, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Thomas Mann, Bertold Brecht, Eugene
O’Neill, etc.—, the late modernism at times continues along the same lines
as, at other times radicalises, but then again also opposes its precursor. My
model of seven characteristics attempts to reflect this ambivalent character
of the newer paradigm as compared to the older one.
2) As with high modernism, the characteristics of late modernism are more ev-
ident in poetry than in prose; therefore, I will dwell solely on this form.
beginning that, by ‘late modernism,’ I refer to the literary paradigm of
the post-World War II era that spans between 1945 and 1965/1970 and in
which originate authors such as Ezra Pound—with The Pisan Cantos—,
William Carlos Williams—with Paterson—, Charles Olson, Paul Celan,
J.W. Prynne, Samuel Beckett—with Malone Dies—, John Barth—with
The Floating Opera—, Thomas Pynchon—with V.—, Alejo Carpentier—
with his first novels— and most of the representatives of the French Nou-
veau Roman—Alain Robbe-Grillet, Michel Butor, Claude Simon, etc. In
short, my understanding of the term ‘late modernism’ is closer to that of
Anthony Mellors, who limits it to the postwar period, rather than Tyrus
Miller, who associates it with the interwar years.
Second, I find it fit to indicate the scope of my comparison: it does
208 not, in any way, seek to provide artificial symmetrical oppositions the
likes of West vs. East or First World vs. Second World. In fact, that would
be an exercise in futility, as, unlike Kermode’s neomodernism, late mod-
ernism is not limited to what was then known as the First World, being
witnessed in Third World countries such as Brazil too (Coutinho 2007,
762). On the other hand, it is also true that late modernism cannot be
construed outside a three-world model: “Late modernism is a product of
Cold War, but in all kinds of complicated ways” (Jameson 2002, 165).
Consequently, what I hope to achieve through this comparison is to as-
sess the extent to which socialist modernism qualifies not as an alternate
model, but as a specific form of late modernism.
Lastly, it should be noted that my typological model draws mainly on
Mellors’ set of characteristics, with a few additions from Jameson, Ker-
mode and Brian McHale. Thus, the relation between the two paradigms
appears as follows:3
3 Being fully aware that an appropriate circumscription of late modernism ex-
ceeds the scope of a single article—not to mention a single endnote—, I will
nevertheless try to preclude some of the confusions which might occur in the
understanding of this concept:
1) As the successor of high, i.e. first, interwar modernism—illustrated by au-
thors such as T.S. Eliot, Gottfried Benn, Paul Valéry, Federico García Lor-
ca, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Thomas Mann, Bertold Brecht, Eugene
O’Neill, etc.—, the late modernism at times continues along the same lines
as, at other times radicalises, but then again also opposes its precursor. My
model of seven characteristics attempts to reflect this ambivalent character
of the newer paradigm as compared to the older one.
2) As with high modernism, the characteristics of late modernism are more ev-
ident in poetry than in prose; therefore, I will dwell solely on this form.
