Modern scholars have explored and portrayed different approaches to not only define postmodernism, but to follow the ripples, of the era’s disturbance on our novelistic endurance & literary production. From metaphysics to liberalism, Freudian predictions of our present culture to actual post-modern novelistic examples, from reality to technological attributions, politics and intertextuality, the explanations for the deterioration in literary creativity and quality vary widely. The fate of the novel has taken a turn for the worse since post-modernism began in the 1950’s simply because people have lost their sense of reality in the world. Authors in this generation merely rewrite the past and foresee the future; in this process we’ve lost our
…show more content…
This phenomenon is basically the tendency of authors borrowing ideas from one text in order to shape new texts; recreating things that already exists, interweaving theories and themes between old and new literature. Within this process, authenticity is lost. Contemporary authors no longer bother with creativity and taking their novels further than the mere surface of American norms. Amanda M. Bigler refers to Thomas Pynchon when trying to express the notion of intertextuality; she proposes that Pynchon introduces to us the theory that there is no possibility of ‘new’ in this present day, that in fact, everything is an attempt to recreate reality (Bigler 2014). In the process authors simply end up feeding the frenzy of pretty much having a conversation through literature. This miniscule introduction of understanding intertextuality represents the view that a text’s meaning is not individual; instead, it should be viewed as a mosaic in which many different works represent one thing. A big reason for this occurrence is the fact that authors have now begun to experiment with other cultures and ideas, in doing so; these authors lose their sense of national identity and assume other cultures’. This is considered intertextuality because the definition to this term has become autonomous; for something to be intertextual it must simply interweave theories and concepts, …show more content…
Andreas Huyssen and Amanda Bigler both acknowledge America’s constant tendency of relapsing culturally for one common reason: technology. In her novel, Huyssen addresses the impact that the technology boom had in Russia during the Post-Cold War; she delves into how literature, and contemporary culture no longer pushed the norms of normality because instead they’d rather be socially accepted. In doing this, authors feed the intertextual culture and the technology boomers (in the West) revel, pretentiously, in familiar capitalist concepts. (Huyssen 1986) This complacency for social acceptability and familiarity continue intertextuality because it carries the same traditional ideas from one generation to the next. Bigler supports this in her article, “Breaking Post-modernism…” when she states the millenials’ new social outlet in relation to our identity in national crises:
“Within the Cold War, the introduction of the internet and social media, and the dawning of a new millennium, writing subject matter has abandoned harsh introspection for empathetic outward connection… technology and social media have created a realm for individuals to connect and to try to understand the conflicts around
This phenomenon is basically the tendency of authors borrowing ideas from one text in order to shape new texts; recreating things that already exists, interweaving theories and themes between old and new literature. Within this process, authenticity is lost. Contemporary authors no longer bother with creativity and taking their novels further than the mere surface of American norms. Amanda M. Bigler refers to Thomas Pynchon when trying to express the notion of intertextuality; she proposes that Pynchon introduces to us the theory that there is no possibility of ‘new’ in this present day, that in fact, everything is an attempt to recreate reality (Bigler 2014). In the process authors simply end up feeding the frenzy of pretty much having a conversation through literature. This miniscule introduction of understanding intertextuality represents the view that a text’s meaning is not individual; instead, it should be viewed as a mosaic in which many different works represent one thing. A big reason for this occurrence is the fact that authors have now begun to experiment with other cultures and ideas, in doing so; these authors lose their sense of national identity and assume other cultures’. This is considered intertextuality because the definition to this term has become autonomous; for something to be intertextual it must simply interweave theories and concepts, …show more content…
Andreas Huyssen and Amanda Bigler both acknowledge America’s constant tendency of relapsing culturally for one common reason: technology. In her novel, Huyssen addresses the impact that the technology boom had in Russia during the Post-Cold War; she delves into how literature, and contemporary culture no longer pushed the norms of normality because instead they’d rather be socially accepted. In doing this, authors feed the intertextual culture and the technology boomers (in the West) revel, pretentiously, in familiar capitalist concepts. (Huyssen 1986) This complacency for social acceptability and familiarity continue intertextuality because it carries the same traditional ideas from one generation to the next. Bigler supports this in her article, “Breaking Post-modernism…” when she states the millenials’ new social outlet in relation to our identity in national crises:
“Within the Cold War, the introduction of the internet and social media, and the dawning of a new millennium, writing subject matter has abandoned harsh introspection for empathetic outward connection… technology and social media have created a realm for individuals to connect and to try to understand the conflicts around