Literature often attempts to address violent and emotional topics which are difficult to deal with verbally. Postmodern literature is a genre which has a unique way of approaching such topics. It questions and often defies literary convention in order to attempt to convey information which cannot ordinarily be expressed by words, such as complex emotional states. In this paper I will demonstrate how two novels, Kathy Acker’s Empire of the Senseless and Frédéric Beigbeder’s Windows on the World, use postmodern techniques to deal with violent and emotional issues, and then compare their techniques to determine which, if either, is more effective in doing this.
Postmodern literature can be difficult to deal with analytically, primarily because the only characteristic of the genre about which there is a general agreement is that there exists no single definition for it. In fact, during the course of my research I was unable to find even a single definition for postmodern literature; even Hawthorn's Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory lists postmodern literature only in terms of a vague comparison to modern literature, specifically pointing to the fact that it is used differently by different authors and scholars and is therefore indefinable (152).
As an alternative to attempting to form a precise definition of this literary phenomenon, many authors attempt to qualify it by referring to some of the common characteristics found in postmodern literature. Ihab Hassan does this in his essay "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism," listing and explaining the qualities he finds as being particular to postmodernism. The two primary characteristics on which he focuses are indeterminacy and immanence; indeterminacy referring to a resistance to order, form, design, and boundaries, and immanence referring to a focus on the present moment, participation in the narrative, informality of the finished text, and the process of and involvement with the writing itself (Hassan, Postmodern Turn 91-93). These characteristics tend to push literature past its past preconceived boundaries, allowing for a degree of freedom of expression previously thought impossible.
This new genre of literature has its critics, and in fact its very existence is not agreed upon by scholars, despite the fact that it is suggested to have come into existence by breaking away from modernism over half a century ago. Barry Chabot critiques Hassan’s definition in particular, pointing to its ambiguity as proof that postmodernism does not qualify as its own genre (2). Hassan responds to this criticism by proposing that it is too broad a phenomenon to be given a concrete definition, and just because on does not exist, this does not mean that it does not exist as an artistic and cultural phenomenon on which a consensus can be found, nor does it mean that it is not useful to analyze it in the way that he has (“On the Problem of Postmodernism” 1).
Many scholars suggest that postmodernism is simply an avant-garde offshoot of modernism, not sufficiently qualified to be defined as a new genre or literary or cultural movement (Hawthorn 151; Kellner 639). While it is true that postmodernism is based on modernism, and shares several qualities with its predecessor, there is sufficient difference to distinguish the two. Postmodernism takes many qualities of modernism to an extreme, including urbanism, technologism, dehumanization, primitivism, eroticism, antinomianism, and experimentalism (Hassan 91-92); if this extreme were the only difference between the two genres, then the critics of postmodernism might be justified in suggesting that it does not qualify as a new literary movement. There are, however, a few key differences which make the two incompatible. One is that modernism eschews advancements in science and technology, while postmodernism embraces them. Another is modernism’s belief in ultimate truth and knowledge; although it may be impossible to fully reach, modernism has faith that it is there, while postmodernism denies its existence completely. Finally, while both modernism and postmodernism recognize a fragmentation of reality and inability for human beings to ever achieve social unity, modernism laments this idea, while postmodernism embraces it (Hawthorn 152-153).
Kathy Acker’s Empire of the Senseless is strongly postmodern, displaying the qualities of indeterminacy and immanence in many ways. Unlike novels written in previous styles, including modern, there is no clear-cut plot or narrative. The point of view is constantly changing, jumping between characters and through time without any particular order. The writing style is very stream-of-consciousness. Acker disregards literary convention, ignoring rules of grammar, inserting images and Arabic script and writing run-on sentences. She also builds much of the novel on previous literary works, and in fact Acker herself claims to have never written anything original (“A Few Notes” 5). She is also strongly interested in the act of writing itself rather than the finished product, and refers to the immediate present as “the truth” and suggests that it is not possible to truly imagine things being different than they are: “One must be where one is,” she says (“A Few Notes” 6).
Acker talks at length about the importance of immanence in “A Few Notes on Two of My Books.” She refers to the fact that postmodern work (although she does not use the term specifically, the literature she describes is, in fact, now considered postmodern) is largely unaccepted by scholars, and asserts that this criticism is unfounded. Her explanation for the large resistance to it is that “our society, through the voice of its literary society, cannot bear immediacy, the truth, especially the political truth” (1). This claim is consistent with Hassan’s explanation of scholars’ resistance to postmodernism, and he suggests that “we resist the new under the guise of judgment” (Postmodern Turn 27). This statement refers to the tendency of human beings to resist change, and he points to judgment and dismissal as justifications for this resistance.
Though his writing style is very different, Beigbeder’s Windows on the World is also very postmodern. The novel itself does contain a conventional plot and narrative, but it is constantly interrupted by the author’s own thoughts as he is writing. Even this inclusion of two different storylines is not consistent; there is one point where the two narrators speak to each other from their respective chapters, arguing about the reason why people jump when trapped in a burning building. Beigbeder suggests that they are rational people who have decided to take control of their mode of death and seize their freedom, to which Carthew responds with “Bullshit, my dear Beigbeder ... You don’t jump 1,300 feet because you’re a free man. You jump because you’re a hunted animal” (149). Beigbeder responds to this by admitting that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because was not there. There is also discontinuity within the primary narrative of Carthew, who, in stream-of-consciousness fashion, occasionally makes reference to things that he could not possibly know, such as that he’ll be dead in two hours (5).
All of these factors defy previous literary convention. And, in fact, this has caused the novel to be poorly received in
Despite the different styles in which these novels are written, they share some common themes which aid them in addressing their respective topics, both relating to violence and difficult emotions. Acker creates a fictional future built on top of other literature which she has read, and primarily addressing violence based on sex (both in terms of gender and of intercourse) and race. Beigbeder’s novel specifically addresses the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and also looks at sex and race as factors in violence.
The fractured narrative in both novels reflects the violent nature of their subject matter. The emotions associated with violence are not easy to experience, and neither is the text. This reflects back on the postmodern trait of immanence; if the novels were smoothly written and easy to follow, as literary convention requires them to be, they would betray the tone of their subject matter. Because they are not, both authors bring the reader directly into the storyline, rather than looking at it from an emotional distance.
One specific example of this, found in both novels, is the constantly shifting point of view of the narrator. At all times it is first person, but there are different speakers at different points in each novel. This in itself would not be particularly significant if it weren’t for the fact that the reader is not always informed of the change in narrator. There are times when it is not at all clear who is speaking, which is confusing to the reader. This fact reflects the confusion of the characters themselves in a way that simple prose could not.
Another postmodern element found in these novels is the violation of typical literary boundaries. Historically, the term “novel” would be applied only to books written in prose. While illustrations are permissible, the text is the focus of the novel. Postmodernism, however, attacks the notion of prose as an effective way of conveying everything that the author is trying to convey. It is fitting for simply telling a story, but not for the communication of complex emotional and mental issues.
Prose is simple text, written in paragraph form, complete sentences, left to right. For much of Empire of the Senseless and Windows on the World, this is the style used, but there are several instances where it is broken. Kathy Acker, for example, interrupts the left to right English prose with Arabic script in some places. At first, it seems as though she is going to translate these lines, as it can be fairly assumed that most English speakers cannot read Arabic. Some of the lines she does translate (although whether the translations are accurate or not is unknown to most readers), but most of them simply sit there on the page, right to left, in an alphabet unable to be understood by the majority of the people who are exposed to it. Furthermore, there is no reason given for most of these interruptions. The narrator does not refer to all of them or explain what they are and why they are there.
These random tidbits of Arabic, likely to be entirely foreign to the reader, convey a sense of alienation which, though it could be described, could not be truly characterized by mere descriptive prose. Acker thus causes the reader to feel this alienation, rather than simply reading about it.
Acker and Beigbeder both use occasional pictures in their novels, although they use them somewhat differently. Acker’s illustrations are not referred to in the text itself. Like the Arabic script, they stand alone without explanation or introduction; they are not illustrations. Unlike the Arabic script, they are not entirely unintelligible to the typical reader. They resemble tattoos, and appear to be highly symbolic; what they are symbolic of, however, is unknown. The reader is left to speculate. While each reader is likely to come up with his or own interpretation of the images, there is a general cultural significance to them. They are gothic, and resemble biker tattoos, which carry connotations of darkness, death, strength, and power; a somewhat unsettling combination of qualities, but all of which are found together in this novel.
Beigbeder uses images differently. The three which he includes in his novel are inserted in the prose and described by the author; essentially, they are illustrations. The abnormality of this is that they, again, do not illustrate the narrative of the man in the
Images, particularly when they are used so sparingly, call the reader’s attention to the portion of text where they appear. The result, then, of Beigbeder’s choice of images and their locations reflects the intended focus of the novel. It is not truly about the fictional story of Carthew, but rather it is about the process of dealing with the tragedy which the author is going through, and which he desires to share with the reader.
Near the end of Windows on the World, Beigbeder writes an entire chapter with the text in two columns signifying the towers of the
But if this chapter is ultimately about moving on and letting go of preoccupations with the past and future, why does it take the shape of the towers? If the author were making a statement about letting go of the past, why memorialize it with the very text in which he claims to be freeing himself of it? Earlier in the novel he goes into great detail about how text outlives reality, and this image is not a coincidence. Again, there is a meaning here which cannot be conveyed by simple prose alone. The words, simple statements made in text, announce the objective truth which many of us have come to at some point in our lives; that the past cannot be changed, the future cannot be predicted, and the only way to live happily is to enjoy the present and not worry about other times. The shape of the text, on the other hand, delivers the realistic truth: that there will always be memories, images, in our minds which, as mere human beings, of which we are incapable of ever completely letting go.
Interestingly, despite these abundant violations of literary convention and standard prose, each author insists that their work is, in fact, a novel; the titles of both books are followed with the words, “A Novel.”
Both of these authors write not for the sake of the finished novel, but for the sake of the process of writing; Acker says that she writes because she enjoys it (“A Few Notes” 3), while Beigbeder refers to the act of writing the novel within the text itself, explaining near the beginning that it is impossible for him to write about anything else, because there is no other topic that touches him in the way that the World Trade Center attack does (8). He often refers to his inability to write this novel properly because he has not experienced what he is writing about, and yet this is precisely what he is attempting to do; this is, of course, an impossible goal. He cannot change the past, and he even refers to his book as useless, “like all books. The writer is like the cavalry, always arriving too late” (26). He explains to the reader that he wants to do something to change the outcome of the plot, but he is unable to get his warning to Carthew, who lives in the past and is now already dead.
There is more to this focus on process than the author’s fulfillment. While it is true that the plot is fragmented or even non-existent, the novels are both still very immersive. The difference between these postmodern works and more conventional literature is that the immersion is not in the storyline, but in the mental process of experiencing it. Acker is directing the reader’s attention to the emotional experience of writing. Even when her sentences are grammatically incorrect or even logically meaningless, there is an emotional sense conveyed by the words which could not be expressed in the same way in a conventional literary format.
Beigbeder’s focus is on dealing with the events of September 11. He could simply have written the fictional account of Carthew and his boys dying in the attack, leaving out his own personal thoughts and experiences, but that would change the purpose and effect of the novel. He is not simply making up a story, but attempting to deal with the psychological implications of the attack by writing about it. The effect once the book is published is to force the reader to consider his or her own reaction to the event, and to think about the question which Beigbeder has asked himself: how does one deal with an event such as this? His instinct is that he must first understand it, which he attempts to do by writing about it, but this proves impossible, because in the end this is only fiction. The greater question then becomes, how does one deal with something one cannot understand? Perhaps the answer is that one cannot, and certainly Beigbeder seems no closer at the end of his novel than he was at the start.
Clearly, Empire of the Senseless and Windows on the World both make good use of postmodern literary techniques to explore complex violent and emotional issues, but which does a better job of it? The answer, it seems, is as subjective as the content of the novels. While the subjects being addressed are of a similar nature, they are different in scope. Acker’s focus is very broad, including a wide range of issues, all of which are interconnected. Her purpose for writing this novel is to explore these issues, and to write, because that is what she enjoys; there is no ultimate conclusion or solution, and there is no ultimate purpose for the novel aside from this exploration. While the ending of Empire of the Senseless directly suggests hope for the future, while the situation in which this statement is made, the general context of the novel, points to the impossibility of such an eventuality given the truth of human nature.
Beigbeder’s subject matter is far more specific. He is attempting to deal with one specific issue: the September 11 terrorist attacks. As such, his focus is narrower, and while all of the topics which Acker addresses in full make an appearance in the novel (the sex scene which was removed from the English version, the waitress’s defensive position about her race (101), and the argument between the Jew and Muslim over Islamic terrorism (141), to name a few examples), and a clear connection is shown between them, Beigbeder is primarily concerned with, even obsessed with, the matter of understanding and dealing with this event. Like Acker, he eventually confirms that his original goal is impossible, indirectly showing that the only way to deal with the situation is to put it out of your mind (something that human beings are not capable of fully doing). The ending to his novel, as explored earlier, overtly suggests the possibility of hope, while subtly pointing at its ultimate impossibility. The purpose of this novel, in the end, is the same as Acker’s: to explore violence and emotion, particularly in the context of this one event and his personal experience in attempting to deal with it.
And so the conclusion is, typical of postmodernism, somewhat inconclusive. With such a high degree of subjectivity present in these texts, judgments about which is better or more effective can not be entirely objective. What is clear is that postmodern literary style, by bending and, when necessary, breaking previously conceived rules of the novel, prose, and literature as a whole, manages to explore certain subjects in a way that could never be done with simple narrative text. The final question, then, is why the great resistance to this newer form of writing? Why the criticism and disdain? The answer, it seems, can be found in Acker’s assertion that modern society is not eager to face the raw truths expressed by postmodern literature. It is indeed human nature to cling to and rationalize the familiar in any way possible, out of a natural fear of change and the unknown. Postmodernism is so effective at exposing these emotional issues that they become difficult and even painful to face. This is reflected in the media’s portrayal of events such as the September 11 attacks: as Beigbeder points out, the American media decided not to show the most brutal and violent images; despite the fact that they regularly display images of violence and gore taken in other countries, it was simply considered too horrible to show these types of images for an event that hit so close to home. “This carnage of human flesh is disgusting?” he asks. “It’s reality that is disgusting – and refusing to look at it, more so” (262).
And herein, I think, lies a vital point. Acker and Beigbeder have written novels that expose the truth in ways previously unheard of, and their style of writing has been heavily criticized as insensitive, marginal, or inconsequential pop art. Perhaps it is not these authors who should be criticized for breaking the rules, but the critics for defending the rules out of discomfort and fear.
Works Cited
Acker, Kathy. Empire of the Senseless.
Acker, Kathy. “A Few Notes on Two of My Books.” Review of Contemporary Fiction, Fall 1999, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p. 117.
Beigbeder, Frédéric. Trans. Frank Wynne. Windows on the World.
Chabot, Barry C. "The Problem of the Postmodern." New Literary History, Vol. 20, No. 1, Critical Reconsiderations. Autumn, 1988, pp. 1-20.
De Villo, Sloan. "The Decline of American Postmodernism" SubStance, Vol. 16, No. 3, Issue 54. 1987, pp. 29-43.
Hassan, Ihab. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture.
Hawthorn, Jeremy. A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory.
Hassan, Ihab. "On The Problem Of The Postmodern." New Literary History, Vol. 20, No. 1, Critical Reconsiderations. Autumn 1998, pp 21-22.
Kellner, Douglas. "Review: Theorizing the Present Moment: Debates between Modern and Postmodern Theory" Theory and Society, Vol. 28, No. 4. Aug., 1999, pp. 639-656.
No comments:
Post a Comment