One of the more well known aspects of postmodernist fiction is the breakdown of the barrier between the author and the reader. Ishmael Reed's signed note's, Vonnegut's first chapter in which he discusses the writing process and destroys any possible suspense as to what the conclusion will be, and Doctorow's facade that he is merely a researcher without the creation of any frame narrative beforehand all bring it to the readers attention that this is a constructed world that has been crafted. I think it is most likely a result of this willingness to break this barrier that many postmodernists are willing to insert anticipate and respond to the criticism they expect to face.
This is most prominent with Vonnegut and Reed, probably because their narratives are the least traditional and most likely to be labeled as purely fictional, untrue and irrelevant by the most banal of their detractors. Both of them include a point at which a character alleges that the alternative version of history central the narrative is simply untrue. For Reed this takes place immediately after he finishes the telling of his alternative history when the literary critic alleges that the story is simply false. In Vonnegut this takes place when Billy Pilgrim's daughter threatens to take away his dignity and freedom because his tales of Tralfamadore simply aren't true. By having the criticism voiced within the novel the authors make it clear that they are aware of the criticism and don't feel it is particularly relevant to the novel since obviously this isn't about debating historical truth.
While Vonnegut's doesn't really go much further into how we should understand his novel then to liken it to the telegraphic style of Tralfamadore, Reed does go into some greater depth. His passages on how essential a sense of humor is and his passages on the statues which caricature white colonialists suggest that we should take his statements about white culture with a sense of humor and an understanding that his mockery serves as a sort of satire and a sort of retribution for the ridicule of Africans by white people. So while I am sure including hints on how to read and understand the novel is not a solely postmodernist technique it seems to me that postmodernist would be more likely to do it then other writers. Furthermore it is a technique that I appreciate because it gives a stronger sense of what the writer is trying to tell us and what they want us to get out of the book. While the effect and the intent can sometime be totally different it is always interesting to see what the author intended.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a really interesting post: I think you're right that there's an implicitly defensive or even combative nature to some of these metafictional moments--it isn't just a gimmick, or a banal "look, it's all constructed!" kind of trick, but more of a direct engagement with the reader and the reader's perceived resistance to some of the ideas presented in the fiction. With Reed this is especially true: the whole novel is about how African American art/writing is minimized or pigeonholed by critics, and Reed throughout seems to be addressing such potential critics of his own work directly.
With Vonnegut, it might appear to be more apologetic/self-deprecating ("the book's a failure"), but in fact I think he's being deliberately disingenuous. The book is a "failure" if the reader expects an action-packed, plot-driven "war novel." But most readers will likely take this as a challenge, to "get" what this novel is doing and not to be bound by genre expectations. Vonnegut isn't *really* apologizing . . .
Post a Comment