Part of what has caused Hysterical Realism or any of the literary movements derived from "the postmodern" (more accurately, the forced termination of modernity) is what I described above, which is teaching. I will add more detail to this claim and attach a couple of passages together from Hugh Kenner's A Homemade World: The American Modernist Writers:
Quote:[page 158]
"Ezra Pound, poet, and T.S. Eliot, poet, emerged from what would not be called Comparative Literature classrooms, the one at Penn and Hamilton, the other at Harvard."
[page 160]
"Speculations on language, though not the effort of mastering languages, have a special appeal for Americans, inhabiting at they do the world's first classroom civilization (From Grimm to Furnivall, the great linguistic empiricists were European; from Whorf to Chomsky, the great theorists have been American). Being the first country since the rise of the nation-states to have undertaken to operate without a capital, America has evolved the university network, formally powerless but transcending regions and boundaries, and shaping the American sensibility more decisively than any other fact of public life"
Two different figures of modernity, who were educated within the university program, yet were able to overcome its limitations: in the prose writings of T.S. Eliot, this takes the form of New Criticism, and in Pound, a focus on economics, support of Fascism, and an attempt to teach ordinary men outside the university system. Speaking further on Pound, the lattermost point can be seen in ABC of Reading, some of his Literary Essays, and in Machine Art, where he fulfills the role of an unorthodox teacher. He is not what would be understood as a Mortimer Adler type, someone who espouses the classics for the sake of it; his recommendations are very much inclined towards the attainment of a Modern outlook. This is the reason he recommends Théophile Gautier, Stendhal, Corbière, etc., because the novelist / the poet will be unable to craft verse or novels without the acknowledgement of his recent predecessors. His writings are an attempt to guide ordinary readers to the most important parts of literary history and take everything else as a lesser priority. One can try to distinguish the prose efforts of both, but each nonetheless are still reforms of literary understanding.
At the sudden growths of universities and the rise of public education, the old demand for a American culture of literature steps away from the background. There is a quite perceptible downside that can follow this, however: it is the problem of the artist who should be within another profession, perhaps someone who should really be in charge of construction efforts or another worthwhile endeavor. This problem stems beyond this time-frame, but it shouldn't pose too much a threat so long as an ultimate aim is established. Since the true modernist faction of politics lost in 1945, there is no sign of what would proceed afterward. The dominance of modernity could have produced a new type of schooling and curriculum, as seen in Giovanni Gentile's reforms, or something that discarded the inadequacies of schooling. It is a territory of conjecture.
Regardless, the creeping incidence of creative writing is evidence of a slow transformation occurring within American literature. It is sometimes connected with the modern/progressive effort of revising the school, seen in works like Rugg and Schumaker's The Child-Centered School [reference borrowed from Program Era book] and to an extent John Dewey, where the creative efforts of the student are to take priority. The question is what the young writer may turn to: the emigre-poets Eliot and Pound ? The nascent modernism of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, etc.? The inchoate mass of Modernism within Europe? The question in unanswered by the schooling institution, for the reform cannot make a sweeping analysis of its own time, it can only be adjusted by the working hands of an overseer. The early attempts at reforming the school, and prioritizing the student over the imposing figure of a teacher, already is an internal issue. If the teacher is considered a figure that obstructs learning, and the purpose is to condition a sense of independence in the student's thoughts and actions, then why should schooling continue to exist? The history of compulsory education in the United States can be understood as an attempt to thwart the tide of immigration and non-white influence, with the mandate of public school attendance being a way of reaffirming common American culture. Why the Klan supported this and didn't create a precursor to TND is beyond me.
What I'm seeking to describe here is an inherent struggle in education, and how it should reflect upon the creative results of a student. It is preferred that an independent creative spirit is founded within the student, but a right inference to be made here is that this, just like the contemporary problems of schooling, is another way of instilling messages inappropriate to certain students, and still obstructing the independent will of the truly genius student. It is a flawed response to the precocious changes of the century, a time that requires new vision. It is underway in the achievements of the Modernist, yet an inertia starts to take control. Around the time of the forties and fifties, there are some movements that are of note, but they all occur within the confines of the university: two examples that come to mind is the Black Mountain School, and the poets inspired by Louis Zukofsky. These two examples are distinct from earlier iterations, because they are nominally "domestic" (if you consider Ellis Islanders to be American), and are student movements. The two examples are not immediately comparable to the post-war Program Era of literature, where the Cal Arts equivalent of writing is embodied in MFA university courses, yet it is similarly facilitated through the university program. As McGurl's book outlines, figures like Flannery O'Connor had a history of attending schools considered progressive and experimental, so there is a considerable lineage to be made between the attempts of schooling reform in the early 20th C. with creative outputs somewhere around the post-war time. When the Iowa Writer's Workshop is introduced to the scene, a piece of the puzzle that will have sizable consequences for university fiction writing standards, it rests upon an insecure foundation:
Quote:"Whereas educational progressivism had assumed the inborn presence of an artist in every individual, who needed only to be set free from external constraints to flourish—and thus had had to do some fancy foot-work to rationalize the role of externalities like the school in this process—the postwar creative writing program was founded on the assumption that artists are forged in the imposition of these institutional constraints upon unfettered creativity..."
The result is that, whenever an eventual movement arises from these origins, a crisis is detectable. Notwithstanding interests some authors might have in these subjects, it is not because of a "Postmodern Condition", it is not an elimination of "grand narratives", but it has everything to do with the American literary establishment. The crisis coincides with the arrival of a truly
mass culture, but the mass culture is not the singular cause. Such an explanation is stated in DFW's essay E Unibus Pluram. The evidence for his claim is more easily found in later novels like Robert Coover's A Public Burning or Max Apples' Propheteers, but it is not universally true for postmodernist fiction. If anything, the contemporary novel being overtaken with absurd asides about Walt Disney or Elvis or anyone of popular status is only significant when you consider a preceding decline.
The Modernist novel is not exclusively characterized by length, but those of highest status are possessed with an expansive character: Ulysses and In Search of Lost Time are both popular examples, but others such as Robert Musil's The Man Without Qualities qualify. As said in Henry Miller's essay The Universe of Death, the publication of such novels amounts to two different phenomena: Proust and Joyce become the artists "most representative of our time", but are stained with death in doing so. "Proust had to die in order even to commence his great work; Joyce, though still alive, seems even more dead than Proust ever was". The writer must react to Ulysses in praise or rejection, and same with Proust's multi-volume work, but the reception takes a funereal form. Here is a longer passage from the essay that is relevant:
Quote:Proust, in his classic retreat from life, is the very symbol of the modern artist—the sick giant who locks himself up in a cork-lined cell to take his brains apart. He is the incarnation of that last and fatal disease: the disease of the mind. In Ulysses Joyce gives us the complete identification of the artist with the tomb in which he buries himself. Ulysses has been spoken of as seeming like “a solid city”. Not so much a solid city, it seems to me, as a dead world-city. Just as there is, beneath the hollow dynamism of the city, an appalling weariness, a monotony, a fatigue insuperable, so in the works of Proust and Joyce the same qualities manifest themselves. A perpetual stretching of time and space, an obedience to the law of inertia, as if to atone, or compensate, for the lack of a higher urge. Joyce takes Dublin with its worn-out types; Proust takes the microscopic world of the Faubourg St. Germain, symbol of a dead past.
I am not sure if I fully agree with Miller's description, but perilousness and the lurking threat of death is involved in what follows. The works of Beckett are a byproduct, a state of anguishing that becomes a weird kind of involution. Characters that have strange relationships with reality itself, their minds detached from the world, replacing regular experiences with a sickly, hypnotic introspection. The characters in these novels, to be sure, are only an ingredient of experimentation, but one cannot shake the feeling that it has something to do with a plodding, vacillating culture. Nothing else can be done, so the best replacement is
aporia and the subtraction of essential things. The Modernist had dealt with unreality, the dreamlike, and the literary experiment, yet there was a substantial focus involved within reality; in its termination, one must deal with an alteration of reality when writing literary fiction, adding and subtracting from the narrative as if the novel is an abacus. The spiritual struggle of
fin de siècle Europe has returned.
For the bored reader, I am now finally getting to Hysterical Realism.
The Hysterical Realism movement, and a few authors who are pioneers of it, can be linked to this abacus metaphor. Since most of them are within the apparatus of an American university education, or inhabiting an Americanized country, they have been caught within a schizophrenic schooling institution, that does not know whether to support the autonomy of an artist or to further trap them within the discipline of the classroom. Meanwhile, the fiction curriculum focuses on Modernist literature, mass-distributed through the textbook industry, and does not move too far beyond that. For the writers that will eventually be associated with the phrase "postmodern", there is only one acceptable path, which is the path that is laid out by the late modernist Beckett. But because he is uncontested and unchallenged in his work, just like the predecessor Joyce, all that one can do is pay tribute (as Donald Barthelme did, who recommended his students read every single work of Samuel Beckett) and attempt to use the abacus strategy elsewhere. Mass culture is one such way to achieve this.
As we see in Hysterical Realism, authors from Pynchon to Wallace borrow from the images of pop culture: Pynchon uses this in Gravity's Rainbow with Shirley Temple and comic book characters, DeLillo does this too much to be described in a succinct way, and DFW uses corporate names for his Infinite Jest novel.
I think I am safe in saying that this is a doubtful approach, which is why the structure of the Hysterical Novel ends up imploding: Pynchon frequently does this through the main character, where they end up "breaking", best represented through Slothrop's fragmentation at the end of GR. DeLillo's White Noise begins and ends with the mediocre circumstances, with chemical disaster never really posing a threat to the ordeals of the family's daily life. Infinite Jest is written in a non-linear way, without a really conventional end. It is not an authentic creative liberty, more of a necessity to follow from the insecure starting-point of these writers. There are only so many ways to reproduce the model of a Hysterical Novel, and attempts to include a parody of academic writing (done in Infinite Jest and House of Leaves) can only go so far. As James Woods says, this is related to a latent despair among the writers, a despair of artistic poverty and a despair made from education. The Modernist could repel this despair even when originating from the institution, but this appears impossible for those of the Hysterical Realists. And just as the crisis is present within writers of literary fiction today, the study of literature and literary criticism undergoes the same erosion: preoccupations of the academic are replaced with other preoccupations, usually related to a social cause like negolatry, and no definitive aim is reached. The novel can survive, but it must be wrested away from scholarly hands.
Note: I am using McGurl's Program Era book for pinpointing certain events, but I would not recommend it. Too much academic-ese, and prefers to engage in long analysis of individual novels rather than a strong historical study.
I decided to end off on this post for now and see how it's responded to. I might provide more detailed observations about some Hysterical Realist novels, and discuss the state of the novel at further length. It was a personal decision to not involve this post with questions about the novel's "form", or about the novel's chance of death, because it is a subject better explored in a future post in the thread.