Postmortemism

The idea of modernism and postmodernism have always fascinated me, to the extent where I have declared myself 'not interested' in reading all of 'the usual classics' (the Brontes, Dickens, y'know...), because they say little to me about my life, whereas the general jankiness of the more recent movements packs a properer punch. Anyway, here we all are, sitting in a rainbow, and then I read this article by Alison Gibbons, saying [postmodernism] is dead (though I guess certain people have been variously saying it was never alive, or died longer ago... Many opinions, I'm sure), but they're not saying it's dead they're just saying that its techniques are being used in different ways, and for different aims. The facets of production, style and whatnot can be the same, but the idea is that, rather than the literature (and the experimentalism) being the point in and of itself, now it is suggested that the helmsperson is steering the authorial ship towards specific issues, racism being an example.

I had a few problems with the article, not least that I've heard this argument for justice before, in some article about the necessity of climate change fiction, but honestly I'm not sure how much I buy it. I'm not convinced on the level of distribution (is fiction read by the people it needs to be? Obviously any one person can be inspired to make a change, but I'm talking 'will it convince Trump to stop being a nob, or will it make old Enid Fairbottom from down the road take her recycling more seriously?' Will most of the liberal folk that need no encouragement to consume literature not already have these views - much like sharing Corbyn memes on Facebook that only your similarly-minded friends see?) and the efficacy of the form itself (do we change our lives because of fiction, or do we feel stimulated, but not act? Do we, in the end, simply feel entertained? Of course that depends on the person (a lazy, narcissistic, anxious arsehole like myself is not moved to change very easily) and the potency of the piece (clearly your Margaret Atwoods are adept at creating narratives that get large swathes of people engaging meaningfully with topics and enjoying/getting freaked out by what she's saying).

Also, I question the labelling of it. I know this was quite a wee article, y'know, not some thesis dissecting millions of examples, but I wondered 'who actually says it's even waning in popularity?' Then I thought, 'you can trust the TLS, surely, they know what they're on about'. Then I thought that labelling something as dying, or whatever, could directly change someone's perceptions, even if there's no evidence. It's sort of like sticking a pube into someone's ice-cream. You made the choice to do it, and even if it's only touching one chocolate chip, the rest of the mint-choc-chip laden cone might well be chucked. Stupid analogy and an over-exaggeration, but, I suppose all I'm saying is, it's weird to call it 'as it's happening'. Feels a bit soon. Gibbons does address this, saying that the situation's "in flux", but if I'm writing a post, and there's a logical contradiction in the reason for writing it, sometimes I just have to say 'bin it'. What's the point in publishing it if you're not confident that there's any point, any benefit?

Though I suppose she's at least created debate. Which is more than I'm doing.

I'm just rambling.

Where's that delete button...

No More Mr Passive Guy

What a month... When I first heard that we were leaving the EU, I was shocked. In fact, I thought the website I was using to check the results hadn't updated itself properly and was stuck on a non-final result. But I'm not so much here to talk about that on its own. After shock came the thought that, while the country might not be going in my preferred direction, we may get to a reasonable destination, possibly even better than the one we're in in some areas. Then came all the backtracking by Brexit politicians, the resigning of our Prime Minister, the this and the that, and all the while the same old Corbyn-bashing was going on in the media and within the Labour party itself. But I'm not sad, or despondent, because there's hope.

   In the run up to the referendum I was completely convinced [as I was with the Scottish one] that fear of change [i.e. fear of losing the positives of the status quo] would loom larger in the voting public's mind than the sketchily articulated 'benefits' [or ’not-promised promises’, or 'implied wonders' as they were this time], and common sense would prevail with a remain vote. Obviously that didn't happen, and it's partly my fault. Yes I voted, and I'm sure you can guess which way, but I didn't agitate. I didn't engage people in discussion, by which I mean people on the street, outside of social media. I think it’s good form to keep politics out of my work, but I could've at least started conversations about it with customers. It might not have changed any votes, but I could've gained a sense of what people's reasons were for voting, and maybe agreed with/refuted them on a number of  wider platforms. But I'm not going to dwell on that, because there's hope.

   Recently I took action. We can’t change the past but we can have an impact on the future by doing something in the present. I would normally shy away from 'nailing my colours to the mast', but those quiet days are coming to an end. Because inaction, shyness and coyness are not powerful tools in this world - a world where simple lies and deceptions are enough to trick the majority of voters - because assumptions do not help overturn prejudice and narrow self-interest, because, I hope, that if we believe and act soon enough, there is chance for us all: because of this I have joined Momentum. Together we are in a better position to change things positively, and now I can try and be part of that.

   I’d appreciate you taking the time to look at their aims too, and then deciding whether you think joining would be right for you.

Time to keep Corbyn!

M x