The critical method which denies literary modernity would appear - and even, in certain respects, would be - the most modern of critical movements.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
As for critical writing about modernism, its moments of lucidity are but fulgurations illuminating the dark and incomprehensible landscape of its subject's unabashed difficulty.
In my opinion, the most significant works of the twentieth century are those that rise beyond the conceptual tyranny of genre; they are, at the same time, poetry, criticism, narrative, drama, etc.
Literary fiction, as a strict genre, is all but dead. Meanwhile, most genres flourish.
The critical principle demanded an examination, for instance, of the contribution of different periods, thus to some extent embarking on historical linguistics.
I still believe nonfiction is the most important literature to come out of the second half of the 20th century.
Ever since my youth it has disturbed me that of the literary works that survived their own epoch, so many dealt with historical rather than contemporary subjects.
A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant.
The point of literary criticism in anthropology is not to replace research, but to find out how it is that we are persuasive.
In science, read, by preference, the newest works; in literature, the oldest. The classic literature is always modern.
Post-modernism has cut off the present from all futures. The daily media add to this by cutting off the past. Which means that critical opinion is often orphaned in the present.