its all SHIT

first of all... this has nothing to do with the graphic novel. second of all... i dont hate post modernism. third of all... the term post modernism has been severely abused. fourthly... why did i have to born into the post modern world?

good job paul auster. youve written a novel that is ambiguous enough to generate 8 million interpretations and garnish all kinds of praise and at the same time be uncategorized or unable to be categorized. the only surprising part? oh wait there is nothing surprising.

it cant be categorized: is it detective fiction? is it meta-fiction? is it poorly written? is it masterfully written to appear poorly written? do you have to be high minded to get it? are you an idiot for thinking its pointless? is the meaning hidden? or is the meaning just not there? does it challenge conventions? ignore them? or create new ones? is it a study of authorship? is it tongue in cheek? hmmm... finding yourself unable to answer any of those questions definitively? well clearly the only thing to do is say its so good you would have to be (insert negative categorical descriptor) to want to put it in a box... cuz thats how people who are not in touch with the post modern era must think. to resist it is to resist the asking of questions. and thats what post modernism does right? it asks questions? or does it challenge conventions? no it does that too, right? or does it explore humanistic themes? yeah, sure it does, right? or does it do all of those things? well, it would have to, because post modern things do that. to be post modern you have to question what isness is, right? or is it that to be post modern you have to ask questions without answers? or is it that you have to question the questions to be post modern?

the praise: everyone from professors to students to "regular people" (?) to scholar/model/athletes to the people who say what is and isn't worth praising have all (or at least a lot of them) come to the conclusion that this book is the shiznite. But is it really? So we've established that the book asks a lot of questions both directly and indirectly. check. and thats the end of the checklist. so from the morass of questions we come to conclusions. these conclusions are that its: supremely thought provoking, amazing and unexpected, convention defying, food for the brain, breathes new life into fiction, a pointless exercise in fiction, lays bare the framework of fiction, achieves new awareness, and so on and so forth. so what? anyone can ask a million questions of anything or anyone. children can be thought provoking in their stupidity. defying conventions can and does lead to incoherence. the framework of fiction can be explored in other ways. and on and on we could go. but of course at the same time we could go on and on in a positive way too. we could say the novel exposes the fear that drives convention. we could say the novel edifies through questioning. we could say the novel makes the reader aware of what they once took for granted. so duality == praise worthy. dividing the audience along fundamental lines == praise worthy. or is it that challenging what is traditionally praise worthy == praise worthy? or is it that post modernism == praise worthy? or (it follows) that generating thousands of miles of analytical and argumentative mileage (fodder for critics, prize judges, scholars) == praise worthy to the people that count == praise worthy for everyone else who wants to be counted as a person that counts in a world that is governed by the post modern measuring rod? or is that even enough removes to capture what's going on? or is it praise worthy because it can draw questions like that out of us? does that make it "the shit"? last question here: is it really all that surprising that it has drawn praise? not really. >_< 8 million interpretations: do i really need to describe them? really? well im not going to. just take my word for it... theyre there. see above. read the back cover. combine with post modern definition (wiki it if you have trouble just taking the known definition and flipping it inside out) of reality/individualism/perception/language/whateverelseyouwanttobetickledorfrustratedorchallengedabout. shake vigorously. consume as quickly as possible. vomit it all up. stir for ten minutes. then interpret. therell be no right answer to what you see. youll feel bad for not caring after doing so much work. and then youll feel bad for feeling bad at all. and then youll feel good that you noticed that you felt bad about feeling bad. and then youll feel smart because you recognized that the good feeling was a response to the convention of feeling bad which was a rejection of the initial convention of feeling bad which was a response to the rorschach blob and the convention of seeking meaning. and then youll feel like post modernism is so intriguing because, by feeling smart and recognizing that the good feeling was a response to the bad was a response to the bad was a response to conventions, you've raised yourself to an awareness you didn't have before. from that day forward youll see everything and question everything and becoming a contributing member of post modern society by creating new interpretations of everything. congratulations. give yourself an award, a fellowship, quit your day job, go on a signing tour, shake the right hands, and retire to an edgy artistically rich community, but no so edgy that you have to be near the lesser hands that keep societies wheels greased, and not too rich either, because you have to be post modern now which means you have to raise questions about what wealth is, and you cant do that by obeying conventions. or is it that by obeying conventions your really challenging the convention of challenging conventions? if you're feeling really good about it, kill yourself and leave your wealth to someone undeserving of anything positive, or better yet, leave it to a foundation that will confer it upon later generations of post modernists to forever seal your legacy and legend that the world never really understood your work to begin with. god damn i am sick of that word. post modernism is a garbage catch all. cant describe it? must be post modern. doesnt fit in its category? must be post modern. different from what came before? must be post modern. unconvetional? no, post modern. raises lots of questions? duh, post modern. muddles boundaries? one word. post-modern-ism. questions the questions? post modern. questions the question's questioning the answers to questions that questioned other questions? post modern. seriously: "?" might as well equal post modern. and what do you think comes after post modernism? post post modernism? questioning the structure of questioning? does the tide really have to swing: formalism > rebellion > anarchy > new formalism> next rebellion > new anarchy? who the fuck can seriously care in the current climate of near unreality?

if you care then you have to question why you care, right? its really getting out of hand. or is it?

i dont hate post modernism as a thing. it was inevitable as a thing. of late it has been horribly abused in its implications, diluted in its meaning, and misused as a metric. just because something can raise questions does not make it praise worthy or a masterfully concocted introspection. just because something can be interpreted 12 different ways does not make it a masterpiece. just because something can dissect forms and fudge boundaries does not make it justified.

but at the end of today, if it means winning fellowships, putting food on my plate, gaining fame and fortune, and retiring a fat bastard carried on the backs of the wheel greasers, guess what kind of writing im going to do? the kind that puts money in my hand, thats what kind. fuck you paul. I couldve written that book.