Favourite Place to Share a Plate of Oysters

Writing a paper on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and how people can "construe things after their own fashion" is not my idea of a good time. Why did I get stuck with this basic idiocy? (Don't remind me that I'm re-taking this because I want an A, totally irrelevant.) I, and everyone else, knows that everything is relevant. And that rhetoric is a very powerful tool.

I'd, to be honest, much rather debate in depth the uses of free indirect discourse. Or read theory (though I'm not sure I care much for anything post-New Criticism).

But, I've been slightly productive and come to a conclusion: Post-modernism did not exist before the internet. What came before was a continuation of modernism, and what we have now is really a development of that. In other words we lack an anti-thesis to modernism. It's modernism + internet. It is really just the modernist angst, distrust and "fragmentarism" taken one step further. If we are to speak of something called post-modernism it must be literature post-internet. The number of published writers, the lack of "prophetic theorists" leaves us with no serious movements to speak of: where did the real experimentalists go?

Though Bolano makes it all ok. His free indirect discourse makes the world a better place.



Disclaimer: this is not supposed to make sense. It is not coherent, and severely lacks cohesion, I'm sure. It's what too much dinner does to you.

NB, I'm sure I've written about my dislike for Paris, non? This blog wanted me to go back, and wallow in it. I'm beginning to suspect there is something about Paris I'm not getting. The idea of sharing a plate of oysters is decadently appealing. Perhaps I can ease into it with Montpellier this summer?

Favourite Place to Share a Plate of Oysters

Writing a paper on Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and how people can "construe things after their own fashion" is not my idea of a good time. Why did I get stuck with this basic idiocy? (Don't remind me that I'm re-taking this because I want an A, totally irrelevant.) I, and everyone else, knows that everything is relevant. And that rhetoric is a very powerful tool.

I'd, to be honest, much rather debate in depth the uses of free indirect discourse. Or read theory (though I'm not sure I care much for anything post-New Criticism).

But, I've been slightly productive and come to a conclusion: Post-modernism did not exist before the internet. What came before was a continuation of modernism, and what we have now is really a development of that. In other words we lack an anti-thesis to modernism. It's modernism + internet. It is really just the modernist angst, distrust and "fragmentarism" taken one step further. If we are to speak of something called post-modernism it must be literature post-internet. The number of published writers, the lack of "prophetic theorists" leaves us with no serious movements to speak of: where did the real experimentalists go?

Though Bolano makes it all ok. His free indirect discourse makes the world a better place.



Disclaimer: this is not supposed to make sense. It is not coherent, and severely lacks cohesion, I'm sure. It's what too much dinner does to you.

NB, I'm sure I've written about my dislike for Paris, non? This blog wanted me to go back, and wallow in it. I'm beginning to suspect there is something about Paris I'm not getting. The idea of sharing a plate of oysters is decadently appealing. Perhaps I can ease into it with Montpellier this summer?