What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #074
Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction
Postmodernism has been a buzzword in contemporary society for the last decade. But how can it be defined? In this Very Short Introduction Christopher Butler challenges and explores the key ideas of postmodernists, and their engagement with theory, literature, the visual arts, film, architecture, and music. He treats artists, intellectuals, critics, and social scientists 'as if they were all members of a loosely constituted and quarrelsome political party' - a partywhich includes such members as Cindy Sherman, Salman Rushdie, Jacques Derrida, Walter Abish, and Richard Rorty - creating a vastly entertaining framework in which to unravel the mysteries of the 'postmodern condition', from the politicizing of museum culture to the cult of the politically correct.ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
153 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 10, 2002
244 people are currently reading
3151 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Butler
69 books13 followersChristopher Butler was Professor of English Literature at Oxford University.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews
April 8, 2017
مثل باقى "درآمدى بسيار كوتاه" ها كتاب خيلى خوبيه. و قطعاً بايد يه بار ديگه ترجمه ش رو بخونم. خيلى جاهاش رو اون طور كه بايد و شايد نفهميدم. زيادى روى زبانم حساب كرده بودم.
نكته ى مهم اينه كه كتاب نوشته ى يه منتقد پست مدرنه، و اين فرصت خيلى خوبى بود كه همزمان هم با كليت پست مدرنيسم آشنا بشم و هم با كليت نقدهايى كه بهش وارده. معمولاً شناخت يك طرفه از يه پديده موجب داورى ناروا ميشه. و فكر مى كنم به طور كلى رويكرد اين مجموعه كتاب، اجتناب از همين ديد يك جانبه است.
اين هم خلاصه اى از فصل دوم كتاب كه به نظرم مهم تر بود.
پ ن: اميدوارم به زودى ترجمه ى فارسى ش رو بخونم، و اميدوارم ترجمه ش خوب باشه، و شايد توى اين ريويو تغييراتى دادم.
نكته ى مهم اينه كه كتاب نوشته ى يه منتقد پست مدرنه، و اين فرصت خيلى خوبى بود كه همزمان هم با كليت پست مدرنيسم آشنا بشم و هم با كليت نقدهايى كه بهش وارده. معمولاً شناخت يك طرفه از يه پديده موجب داورى ناروا ميشه. و فكر مى كنم به طور كلى رويكرد اين مجموعه كتاب، اجتناب از همين ديد يك جانبه است.
اين هم خلاصه اى از فصل دوم كتاب كه به نظرم مهم تر بود.
پ ن: اميدوارم به زودى ترجمه ى فارسى ش رو بخونم، و اميدوارم ترجمه ش خوب باشه، و شايد توى اين ريويو تغييراتى دادم.
May 29, 2018
Okay, this book is a travesty.
First off, a philosopher or at the very least an art historian should have written this book, not a literature scholar. Not that it would have necessarily been better, because the big secret about postmodernism is almost nobody calls themselves a postmodernist, and at the most says things like, "I'm using a postmodernist technique of deconstruction." Critics of postmodernism usually attack a straw man of what they think a postmodernist is, complete with a series of positions that nobody I have ever met actually holds.
I'm going to go through a series of issues I have with this book and what it thinks a postmodernist is.
1. You would think Butler would do his best on literature, but while I am not a big fan of postmodernist literature and many of the authors that Butler mentions specifically, he never even tells us what postmodern literature is apart from contrasting it to a ridiculous definition on realism where the author portrays the world as it really is. Butler even states that liberal realism is the most useful form of literature, whatever that is.
2. I'm also not a huge fan of postmodernist art, but it has been useful in helping us question and try to come to grips with exactly what art is. You would think that Butler would mention that a time or two. Also, his main criticism is that postmodernist art is always in danger of re-enforcing the thing it is criticizing, which is a danger of all art as far as I can tell, and especially satire.
3. He spends more time on Foucault than anybody, never mentioning that Foucault rejected the label postmodernist. So basically the guy he spends the most time on said he wasn't a postmodernist, the authors he mentions he admits aren't completely postmodernists and then he harps about Derrida who was a post-structuralist, which is its own thing.
4. I have never met a person I consider to be a true relativist. Yet, the argument against postmodernists is always that they are relativists. As far as I can tell, the people that are labeled postmodernists never claim that truth is relative or that there is no objective reality, only express skepticism that the systems that people currently claim deliver this to us actually do so. What is funny about this is that a second later we usually hear how postmodernists are attacking the objective nature of the systems white men love best by bringing gender and race into everything.
5. Speaking of which, if you don't think history is merely a narrative designed to portray events in a certain light based on the values of the current society, then I don't know what to say. Just look at how Native Americans were portrayed, the myths about them, and how these myths are now being questioned. Sure, laypeople often distort history the most but historians and scientists have gotten in on the act quite a bit.
6. Speaking of criticisms of science, critics of postmodernists love to demonize them for daring to criticize science. Trouble is, they either hold up the worst examples of things so-called postmodernists have claimed, or do a Noam Chomsky and claim that postmodernists are obviously wrong because they cannot prove things by the standards of the systems they are criticizing in the first place. (The flaw in this logic should be obvious, but Chomsky is oblivious to it, as are most people.)
Paul Feyerbend is the best so-called postmodernist critic of science, and he questions the idea that science is a single method, that it portrays an objective reality, that its assumptions should be taken as proven because of science's success, that scientific revolutions proceed rationally, etc. etc. and gives detailed arguments to back them up. Number of times he or any of his arguments are mentioned in this book: 0.
First off, a philosopher or at the very least an art historian should have written this book, not a literature scholar. Not that it would have necessarily been better, because the big secret about postmodernism is almost nobody calls themselves a postmodernist, and at the most says things like, "I'm using a postmodernist technique of deconstruction." Critics of postmodernism usually attack a straw man of what they think a postmodernist is, complete with a series of positions that nobody I have ever met actually holds.
I'm going to go through a series of issues I have with this book and what it thinks a postmodernist is.
1. You would think Butler would do his best on literature, but while I am not a big fan of postmodernist literature and many of the authors that Butler mentions specifically, he never even tells us what postmodern literature is apart from contrasting it to a ridiculous definition on realism where the author portrays the world as it really is. Butler even states that liberal realism is the most useful form of literature, whatever that is.
2. I'm also not a huge fan of postmodernist art, but it has been useful in helping us question and try to come to grips with exactly what art is. You would think that Butler would mention that a time or two. Also, his main criticism is that postmodernist art is always in danger of re-enforcing the thing it is criticizing, which is a danger of all art as far as I can tell, and especially satire.
3. He spends more time on Foucault than anybody, never mentioning that Foucault rejected the label postmodernist. So basically the guy he spends the most time on said he wasn't a postmodernist, the authors he mentions he admits aren't completely postmodernists and then he harps about Derrida who was a post-structuralist, which is its own thing.
4. I have never met a person I consider to be a true relativist. Yet, the argument against postmodernists is always that they are relativists. As far as I can tell, the people that are labeled postmodernists never claim that truth is relative or that there is no objective reality, only express skepticism that the systems that people currently claim deliver this to us actually do so. What is funny about this is that a second later we usually hear how postmodernists are attacking the objective nature of the systems white men love best by bringing gender and race into everything.
5. Speaking of which, if you don't think history is merely a narrative designed to portray events in a certain light based on the values of the current society, then I don't know what to say. Just look at how Native Americans were portrayed, the myths about them, and how these myths are now being questioned. Sure, laypeople often distort history the most but historians and scientists have gotten in on the act quite a bit.
6. Speaking of criticisms of science, critics of postmodernists love to demonize them for daring to criticize science. Trouble is, they either hold up the worst examples of things so-called postmodernists have claimed, or do a Noam Chomsky and claim that postmodernists are obviously wrong because they cannot prove things by the standards of the systems they are criticizing in the first place. (The flaw in this logic should be obvious, but Chomsky is oblivious to it, as are most people.)
Paul Feyerbend is the best so-called postmodernist critic of science, and he questions the idea that science is a single method, that it portrays an objective reality, that its assumptions should be taken as proven because of science's success, that scientific revolutions proceed rationally, etc. etc. and gives detailed arguments to back them up. Number of times he or any of his arguments are mentioned in this book: 0.
October 7, 2019
Sometimes these little books are good, sometimes they're inexplicably bad. Give this one a miss, there are better introductions to postmodernism to be found elsewhere. Assuredly biased against postmodernism both as an artistic movement and philosophical movement it's mostly concerned with picking apart Derridian models of language, favouring a Wittgensteinian approach. The author makes this clear at least which I appreciated. Does give a fairly rounded introduction to the various thinkers (Lyotard, Barthes and also literary figures are mentioned) but poisons the well of their ideas, so to speak. Postmodernism is also squarely blamed for the rise of political correctness which is simply an odd take-away to make from the likes of Barthes.
A lot of time is spent on Foucault with accusations of Marxism which is a fairly vulgar interpretation of his work. Lyotard is also misunderstood in relation to world conflict and ideology with an explanation of the dissolution of the master narrative. He argues that the master narrative is alive and well in cases such as Serbia and Northern Ireland. This over-reductive argument does not account for the blurring of ideological lines and continual disintegration of them and would not stand up to continued scrutiny. There are many antithetical arguments like this which seem on the surface to be well argued but are frankly simplistic, but this one irked me the most.
I thought this totally missed the point and on another fundamental level misunderstood postmodernism as a movement in itself. He does acknowledge that in France these thinkers were often opposed and had their own arguments between one another, but conveniently, these are ignored. There's a lot wrong here with this prognosis, and I could go on all day about my misgivings with this introduction. It's not the worst introduction to the postmodern that I have come across though, that award goes to Stephen R.C. Hicks "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault".
A lot of time is spent on Foucault with accusations of Marxism which is a fairly vulgar interpretation of his work. Lyotard is also misunderstood in relation to world conflict and ideology with an explanation of the dissolution of the master narrative. He argues that the master narrative is alive and well in cases such as Serbia and Northern Ireland. This over-reductive argument does not account for the blurring of ideological lines and continual disintegration of them and would not stand up to continued scrutiny. There are many antithetical arguments like this which seem on the surface to be well argued but are frankly simplistic, but this one irked me the most.
I thought this totally missed the point and on another fundamental level misunderstood postmodernism as a movement in itself. He does acknowledge that in France these thinkers were often opposed and had their own arguments between one another, but conveniently, these are ignored. There's a lot wrong here with this prognosis, and I could go on all day about my misgivings with this introduction. It's not the worst introduction to the postmodern that I have come across though, that award goes to Stephen R.C. Hicks "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault".
November 19, 2009
I read this in the Austin central library one afternoon and neglected a stack of books I'd greedily grabbed up while roaming around the third floor (where the philosophy and science stuff is).
The author doesn't feign "neutrality" and gives postmodernism a righteous kick in the pants where it is called for. Though this is not a stuffy, simple-minded dismissive screed (the kind you might find ultra-aesthetically conservative types make) either--it showcases both strengths and weaknesses rather well.
Full disclosure: I mainly liked it because I strongly agree with his diagnosis of the infamously slippery and nebulous concept of postmodernism. It's a brand of critique I've heard before (David Foster Wallace makes it wonderfully in various places, mainly interviews like this jaw dropping one for example), but it was a pleasure to read nonetheless. The author did a great job of condensing a broad swath of subjects and case studies into another one of the books that are a part of this fantastic "Very Short Introductions" series.
The author doesn't feign "neutrality" and gives postmodernism a righteous kick in the pants where it is called for. Though this is not a stuffy, simple-minded dismissive screed (the kind you might find ultra-aesthetically conservative types make) either--it showcases both strengths and weaknesses rather well.
Full disclosure: I mainly liked it because I strongly agree with his diagnosis of the infamously slippery and nebulous concept of postmodernism. It's a brand of critique I've heard before (David Foster Wallace makes it wonderfully in various places, mainly interviews like this jaw dropping one for example), but it was a pleasure to read nonetheless. The author did a great job of condensing a broad swath of subjects and case studies into another one of the books that are a part of this fantastic "Very Short Introductions" series.
March 16, 2018
A Very Short Introduction to Hating Postmodernism.
The author (a professor of English literature; not a philosopher or historian) is unabashedly against postmodernism. Every discussion of postmodernist theories is put before the reader with a sneer; "just look at how ridiculous these thoughts are." The author immediately dismisses every point that is brought up with unsupported assurances of how utterly nonsensical it all is yet never actually manages to convincingly disprove a single point. The whole thing is just dripping with vile. What did postmodernism ever do to you, Christopher Butler?
Although, delightful irony that in a book about postmodernism the author is so self-assured in his own unsupported opinions.
The author (a professor of English literature; not a philosopher or historian) is unabashedly against postmodernism. Every discussion of postmodernist theories is put before the reader with a sneer; "just look at how ridiculous these thoughts are." The author immediately dismisses every point that is brought up with unsupported assurances of how utterly nonsensical it all is yet never actually manages to convincingly disprove a single point. The whole thing is just dripping with vile. What did postmodernism ever do to you, Christopher Butler?
Although, delightful irony that in a book about postmodernism the author is so self-assured in his own unsupported opinions.
September 12, 2021
An Anarchic Movement
Postmodernism was born after the Second World War and became fashionable in the 1960’s when many of its proponents, Derrida, Foucault, Beckett et al, were at their height. However, its maxims have permeated society and still enter the conversation be it in literature, politics, gender, race, history, architecture, music or art.
Postmodernism seems to have emerged as an antidote to mainstream Anglo-American liberal philosophical thought that was deemed to be accessible to all in an “ordinary language” with maximum clarity. The postmodernist attitude was therefore one of suspicion which bordered on paranoia and, despite its Marxist affiliations and political aspirations, was never intended to fit into anything like this kind of consensual and cooperative framework. It is therefore anti-grand narrative, anti-history, anti-colonial, and anti-empirical science. A typical postmodernist conclusion: universal truth is impossible, and relativism is our fate.
I was particularly interested to note that some of the most difficult books of literature I have read, or attempted to read, were by postmodernist writers, notably Beckett (see my review of his Molloy Trilogy that took me years to finish), Pynchon (whom I abandoned halfway),Nabokov, Fowles and Auster, the latter three authors whose books I did finish reading, but concluded that they preferred to dwell in states of altered reality or madness. In fact, Butler posits that “The postmodernist novel doesn’t try to create a sustained realist illusion: it displays itself as open to all those illusory tricks of stereotype and narrative manipulation, and to multiple interpretation in all its contradiction and inconsistency, which are central to postmodernist thought.”
This short book, termed “a very short introduction” – thank God, for it got into various arguments and viewpoints that seemed to circle back to the key points that I am trying to extract in this review — covers other areas of human endeavour where postmodernism has left its footprint: painting, music, architecture and language. However, the dominant characteristic is postmodernism’s anarchic stance and desire to turn the established order on its head and leave us open to many interpretations of the truth. Postmodernism, being mainly on the side of the subordinated and marginalized, has been a boon for feminists, race and gender activists, prisoners, and the criminally insane. Many of the pro-marginalized movements born in the last 50 years could be seen as manifestations and extensions of postmodernist thought.
The author displays his bias when he says: “Postmodernists are by and large pessimists, many of them haunted by lost Marxist revolutionary hopes and the belief that the art they inspire is often negative rather than constructive.”
However, Butler leaves the door open to freedom of choice when he concludes, “But it is important to remember that in the arts, too, alternative traditions persist – and for two main reasons – firstly, because modernist traditions continue, and there are many artists who have learned something from postmodernism without being devoted followers of it.” I myself conclude that I never succumbed to postmodernism although I came of age during this period; my work is more in the realist mode.
This is a good primer for those interested in the various artistic and philosophical movements that rise and fall over the ages. Over the last two centuries, they seem to be coming in 50-year intervals, more or less. If that is the case, then postmodernism must have run its course by now, leaving only stains of its ideology embedded in various segments of our society. What comes next? Post-postmodernism or Port-Truth, and are we already living it?
Postmodernism was born after the Second World War and became fashionable in the 1960’s when many of its proponents, Derrida, Foucault, Beckett et al, were at their height. However, its maxims have permeated society and still enter the conversation be it in literature, politics, gender, race, history, architecture, music or art.
Postmodernism seems to have emerged as an antidote to mainstream Anglo-American liberal philosophical thought that was deemed to be accessible to all in an “ordinary language” with maximum clarity. The postmodernist attitude was therefore one of suspicion which bordered on paranoia and, despite its Marxist affiliations and political aspirations, was never intended to fit into anything like this kind of consensual and cooperative framework. It is therefore anti-grand narrative, anti-history, anti-colonial, and anti-empirical science. A typical postmodernist conclusion: universal truth is impossible, and relativism is our fate.
I was particularly interested to note that some of the most difficult books of literature I have read, or attempted to read, were by postmodernist writers, notably Beckett (see my review of his Molloy Trilogy that took me years to finish), Pynchon (whom I abandoned halfway),Nabokov, Fowles and Auster, the latter three authors whose books I did finish reading, but concluded that they preferred to dwell in states of altered reality or madness. In fact, Butler posits that “The postmodernist novel doesn’t try to create a sustained realist illusion: it displays itself as open to all those illusory tricks of stereotype and narrative manipulation, and to multiple interpretation in all its contradiction and inconsistency, which are central to postmodernist thought.”
This short book, termed “a very short introduction” – thank God, for it got into various arguments and viewpoints that seemed to circle back to the key points that I am trying to extract in this review — covers other areas of human endeavour where postmodernism has left its footprint: painting, music, architecture and language. However, the dominant characteristic is postmodernism’s anarchic stance and desire to turn the established order on its head and leave us open to many interpretations of the truth. Postmodernism, being mainly on the side of the subordinated and marginalized, has been a boon for feminists, race and gender activists, prisoners, and the criminally insane. Many of the pro-marginalized movements born in the last 50 years could be seen as manifestations and extensions of postmodernist thought.
The author displays his bias when he says: “Postmodernists are by and large pessimists, many of them haunted by lost Marxist revolutionary hopes and the belief that the art they inspire is often negative rather than constructive.”
However, Butler leaves the door open to freedom of choice when he concludes, “But it is important to remember that in the arts, too, alternative traditions persist – and for two main reasons – firstly, because modernist traditions continue, and there are many artists who have learned something from postmodernism without being devoted followers of it.” I myself conclude that I never succumbed to postmodernism although I came of age during this period; my work is more in the realist mode.
This is a good primer for those interested in the various artistic and philosophical movements that rise and fall over the ages. Over the last two centuries, they seem to be coming in 50-year intervals, more or less. If that is the case, then postmodernism must have run its course by now, leaving only stains of its ideology embedded in various segments of our society. What comes next? Post-postmodernism or Port-Truth, and are we already living it?
December 23, 2022
يتناول كتاب "ما بعد الحداثة: مقدمة قصيرة" هذه المرحلة الهامة من مراحل التطور الفكري الغربي والتي لا يزال أثرها باق إلى يومنا هذا.
مرحلة "الحداثة" امتدت منذ العصور الوسطى مرورا بالتنوير وانتهاءا بالثورة الصناعية حتى فترة الحرب العالمية الثانية وما تلاها من الحرب الباردة. وجاءت مرحلة "بعد الحداثة" تمردا على فكر الحداثة، حيث ساد الشعور بالاحباط وفقدان الثقة تجاه الثقافة والفكر التي اوصلت المجتمع الغربي لأصعب الظروف. جاءت "بعد الحداثة" بإطار فكري يضع كل المفاهيم تحن مجهر النقد والتدقيق، فقد الإيمان بمشاريع الماركسية والرأسمالية، التركيز على اللحظة الآنية وتقديسها على ما سواها، تنوع الهويات والاهتمام بالفئات المهمشة اجتماعيا وثقافيا، ومن أبرز الاتجاهات الناشئة في ظل ما بعد الحداثة: العدمية، اللامعنى، اللانظام، التحرر وتفكيك المقولات المركزية الكبرى.
مرحلة "الحداثة" امتدت منذ العصور الوسطى مرورا بالتنوير وانتهاءا بالثورة الصناعية حتى فترة الحرب العالمية الثانية وما تلاها من الحرب الباردة. وجاءت مرحلة "بعد الحداثة" تمردا على فكر الحداثة، حيث ساد الشعور بالاحباط وفقدان الثقة تجاه الثقافة والفكر التي اوصلت المجتمع الغربي لأصعب الظروف. جاءت "بعد الحداثة" بإطار فكري يضع كل المفاهيم تحن مجهر النقد والتدقيق، فقد الإيمان بمشاريع الماركسية والرأسمالية، التركيز على اللحظة الآنية وتقديسها على ما سواها، تنوع الهويات والاهتمام بالفئات المهمشة اجتماعيا وثقافيا، ومن أبرز الاتجاهات الناشئة في ظل ما بعد الحداثة: العدمية، اللامعنى، اللانظام، التحرر وتفكيك المقولات المركزية الكبرى.
November 8, 2021
The mocking, sarcastic tone of this little book put me off, and at some point early on, I started skimming. It's almost as if the author is saying: "There's this ridiculous new way of looking at the world that I'm forced to tell you about, but I really just think that those who contribute to this trend in thought and culture are a bunch of silly, paranoid, pretentious people".
Not recommended.
Not recommended.
May 26, 2020
Buku yang paling payah nak habiskan pembacaan setakat ni. Ada semacam kitaran baca-pening-rehat banyak kali berulang. Last-last, gagahkan jela baca walaupun kurang faham apa tujuan utama penulis dalam buku ni. Haha.
December 6, 2019
I remain perplexed as to how this managed to get published.
September 7, 2020
140th book of 2020.
Ah, postmodernism. Before I discuss this book, I want to comment on a TV show I saw a while ago (perhaps on the BBC, but I can’t remember): at one point a number of artists were asked to define postmodernism. The results were humorous, but not helpful; most said things like “it has been explained to me a hundred times and I still don’t understand it” or, more simply, “I don’t know.” One, who had been described as a postmodernist themselves, had no clue either. I’ve spent the last few weeks reading about postmodernism and it does seem to be this elusive, often mischievous, force of nature, sometimes eluding the very people who create it—is postmodernism Frankenstein’s Monster?
Butler is not a postmodernist. His stance is critical in all sense of the word—he attacks postmodernism throughout the book and even partly mocks it. He starts a little lenient perhaps, but by the end, his stance is very much clear. I am by no means a “supporter” of postmodernism, but I have a great deal of interest within it. After many weeks of reading around the subject, this book didn’t reveal a great deal of new information, but there were some “known” things outlined nicely. Butler’s tone did irk me by the end: critical, slightly arrogant and aloof. It did make me wonder why he wanted to write the book, or why anyone wanted him to write the book, considering his scathing views of the movement. Interestingly, he finalised his thoughts by saying I believe that the period of its greatest influence is now over; this is no new claim either. Of course, now, we could be in post-post-modernism, or else post-post-post-modernism and so on… We are forever beyond modernism.
As an introduction it was acceptable, but mostly too much of an attack for an “introduction”—one wanting an entrance into a movement should not be led through lenses of disapproval and derision. All the names one expects to read were there: Derrida, Pynchon, Jencks, Grass, Nabokov, Eco, Rushdie, Rauschenberg.
Overall an interesting read but some articles I have read were more enlightening and less critical. A dissection can be deep, but not wounding—Butler’s incisions were heavy-handed and drew a lot of watery blood without much substance.
Ah, postmodernism. Before I discuss this book, I want to comment on a TV show I saw a while ago (perhaps on the BBC, but I can’t remember): at one point a number of artists were asked to define postmodernism. The results were humorous, but not helpful; most said things like “it has been explained to me a hundred times and I still don’t understand it” or, more simply, “I don’t know.” One, who had been described as a postmodernist themselves, had no clue either. I’ve spent the last few weeks reading about postmodernism and it does seem to be this elusive, often mischievous, force of nature, sometimes eluding the very people who create it—is postmodernism Frankenstein’s Monster?
Butler is not a postmodernist. His stance is critical in all sense of the word—he attacks postmodernism throughout the book and even partly mocks it. He starts a little lenient perhaps, but by the end, his stance is very much clear. I am by no means a “supporter” of postmodernism, but I have a great deal of interest within it. After many weeks of reading around the subject, this book didn’t reveal a great deal of new information, but there were some “known” things outlined nicely. Butler’s tone did irk me by the end: critical, slightly arrogant and aloof. It did make me wonder why he wanted to write the book, or why anyone wanted him to write the book, considering his scathing views of the movement. Interestingly, he finalised his thoughts by saying I believe that the period of its greatest influence is now over; this is no new claim either. Of course, now, we could be in post-post-modernism, or else post-post-post-modernism and so on… We are forever beyond modernism.
As an introduction it was acceptable, but mostly too much of an attack for an “introduction”—one wanting an entrance into a movement should not be led through lenses of disapproval and derision. All the names one expects to read were there: Derrida, Pynchon, Jencks, Grass, Nabokov, Eco, Rushdie, Rauschenberg.
Overall an interesting read but some articles I have read were more enlightening and less critical. A dissection can be deep, but not wounding—Butler’s incisions were heavy-handed and drew a lot of watery blood without much substance.
October 26, 2012
This book is much better than his book on Modernism: A very short... It is focused, and well digested (not scattered, like the other one). And I *am* sympathetic, of course, to his rather undisguised hostile attitude towards Postmodernism.
But the book *is* a bit superficial -- which is justifiable, perhaps, given the tendency of books on this topic to obfuscate by speaking about themselves from *within* the jargon...; but it is also a bit boring. I don't know if it is the author who is boring or the topic that I (certainly do) find boring -- or maybe both. Or maybe it's me, and not you... but since the Postmodernists deny the existence of the transcendental ego (the unified self), there is no me... or rather, me is entirely made up of the junctions of you's.
So it definitely *isn't* me... that's at fault...
Whew...! (what a relief!)
But the book *is* a bit superficial -- which is justifiable, perhaps, given the tendency of books on this topic to obfuscate by speaking about themselves from *within* the jargon...; but it is also a bit boring. I don't know if it is the author who is boring or the topic that I (certainly do) find boring -- or maybe both. Or maybe it's me, and not you... but since the Postmodernists deny the existence of the transcendental ego (the unified self), there is no me... or rather, me is entirely made up of the junctions of you's.
So it definitely *isn't* me... that's at fault...
Whew...! (what a relief!)
December 7, 2020
A fascinating and really critical account of the postmodernist period, which I loved as much as I love postmodernism.
January 15, 2021
Indeed short, hardly introductive. More than an introduction, this short book is a critique to Postmodernism, and won't help much those who want to understand what postmodernism is. Try Perry Anderson's The Origins of Postmodernity instead.
February 20, 2019
250615: another review lost in the maw of GR: most I can remember is that it is a rather short, introductory, not very sympathetic take on postmodernism by a convinced modernist...
January 12, 2017
I enjoyed this book—kept me reading and excited—simply because I like the topic! Anyway, I don’t think anyone immersed in popular literature (low culture) and with no critical inclinations would appreciate it. It’s for those interested in criticism, literary theory and analysis; or simply those who want to understand postmodern art (literature for me), and even contemporary art, in a better way. Especially with those parody movies and ‘broken’ novels and poems, refracted in all kinds of directions, making those addicted to linearity and comfort and order lose their hold … and patience.
Here is a holistic summary of postmodernism as outlined by Butler:
• its affiliation with Freudianism and Marxism, thus its resistance to ‘anything’ bourgeois;
• its deconstructive skeptical approach;
• the death of the subject, i.e. we are subjected beings—the idea that our self is other-determined by social and economic hierarchizing structures;
• the politicizing of art;
• the trend for parody and pastiche in art and architecture;
• the ‘depthlessness’ and lack of affect in postmodern literature;
• the belief that everything is text;
• the belief that everything is fiction, a story;
• the belief that everything is interpretation, i.e. perspectivism …
This book is great as an introduction, particularly for those unready for the rigorous theoretical accounts of postmodernism’s avant-garde critics and theorists. What would really improve the understanding of the movement, in my experience, is reading (or observing) some of its art. Here I recommend reading postmodernist poetry and novels: Marylinne Robinson’s Housekeeping , and Toni Morrison’s Beloved, or A Mercy—are perfect exemplars when it comes to narrative technique and thematic (deconstructive) representation.
Here is a holistic summary of postmodernism as outlined by Butler:
• its affiliation with Freudianism and Marxism, thus its resistance to ‘anything’ bourgeois;
• its deconstructive skeptical approach;
• the death of the subject, i.e. we are subjected beings—the idea that our self is other-determined by social and economic hierarchizing structures;
• the politicizing of art;
• the trend for parody and pastiche in art and architecture;
• the ‘depthlessness’ and lack of affect in postmodern literature;
• the belief that everything is text;
• the belief that everything is fiction, a story;
• the belief that everything is interpretation, i.e. perspectivism …
This book is great as an introduction, particularly for those unready for the rigorous theoretical accounts of postmodernism’s avant-garde critics and theorists. What would really improve the understanding of the movement, in my experience, is reading (or observing) some of its art. Here I recommend reading postmodernist poetry and novels: Marylinne Robinson’s Housekeeping , and Toni Morrison’s Beloved, or A Mercy—are perfect exemplars when it comes to narrative technique and thematic (deconstructive) representation.
June 14, 2022
Postmodernism starts with a kind of healthy skepticism: reminding us that we need to be on the lookout for placing untoward reliance on familiar and comfortable default assumptions and be ready, instead, to consider alternative interpretations. From here, it quickly goes off the deep end, treating language, logic and reason as though they were exclusively tools of oppression.
Practitioners pursue their viewpoint devoid of irony. Many are startlingly ignorant of the subjects they critique and are impervious to the self-contradiction involved in using authoritarian methods to support an agenda they claim to be directed at attacking authoritarianism. Postmodern cultural products, whether literature, music or visual art are also invariably jejune and stultifyingly boring.
This book gives a fair executive summary of the movement. But it fails to address the key question: How could an idea which might occur to someone in an idle moment, say, while taking a bath, and justifiably been shrugged off with a chuckle, become a guiding - perhaps the dominant - principle in intellectual life for over fifty years?
Practitioners pursue their viewpoint devoid of irony. Many are startlingly ignorant of the subjects they critique and are impervious to the self-contradiction involved in using authoritarian methods to support an agenda they claim to be directed at attacking authoritarianism. Postmodern cultural products, whether literature, music or visual art are also invariably jejune and stultifyingly boring.
This book gives a fair executive summary of the movement. But it fails to address the key question: How could an idea which might occur to someone in an idle moment, say, while taking a bath, and justifiably been shrugged off with a chuckle, become a guiding - perhaps the dominant - principle in intellectual life for over fifty years?
September 29, 2012
Starts out as a critique, and inserts the "introduction" part towards the middle, then goes back to talking about how useless and silly it all is. While attempting to be informative, the author also ends up sounding whiny, not to mention that he spends a lot of time on Foucault (more than half of it enumerating his and Derrida's flaws) without discussing the differences between postmodernism and poststructuralism.
Take this for an example of the author lashing out: "Postmodernists are by and large pessimists, many of them haunted by lost Marxist revolutionary hopes, and the beliefs and the art they inspire are often negative rather than constructive." This statement is presented as irrefutable fact, despite being highly flawed and incomplete.
This "very short" introduction could have been shorter without all the complaining, which I think makes this book a hard sell, or maybe an irresponsible and mostly one-sided one, if it is truly meant to be an introduction.
Take this for an example of the author lashing out: "Postmodernists are by and large pessimists, many of them haunted by lost Marxist revolutionary hopes, and the beliefs and the art they inspire are often negative rather than constructive." This statement is presented as irrefutable fact, despite being highly flawed and incomplete.
This "very short" introduction could have been shorter without all the complaining, which I think makes this book a hard sell, or maybe an irresponsible and mostly one-sided one, if it is truly meant to be an introduction.
January 19, 2022
too biased against postmodernism? nahh (yes)
March 5, 2019
Redundant at parts.
January 8, 2025
Started listening to this audiobook in hope of learning what Postmodernism is all about. Once I started listening, I realized that this book is not written for a complete beginner like me. This book is approachable ONLY if you are already exposed to different philosophical ideas, philosophical jargons and quite a bit of French philosophers and social scientists’ names. Reading the book felt like you were sitting in a college course lecture which requires pre-requisites which you did not take.
Also, I found the writing style very dull, dry and expository. So, abandoned the book in the middle. If anybody can recommend an easily approachable book(s) on Postmodernism, I would appreciate it.
Also, I found the writing style very dull, dry and expository. So, abandoned the book in the middle. If anybody can recommend an easily approachable book(s) on Postmodernism, I would appreciate it.
May 27, 2022
Very good introduction, especially if you are familiar with post-structuralism and deconstruction.
September 16, 2016
You go into an art museum and find a canoe supported by four golf clubs. On top of the canoe is a rubber chicken. The title of the work is "Your Table Is Ready"
Welcome to Postmodernism, but realize that you are very late. In fact, this movement within the arts world is fading, having reached its peak in the 1980's and 90's.
The word still pops up frequently, though, so why not find out what it is all about?
Christopher Butler does us a valuable service in writing this short book that covers the topic across the arts of literature, music and painting providing many examples and a penetrating critique that carefully defines terms and is a pleasure to read.
Postmodernism questions authority. It does this by revealing the influence of cultural forces behind works of art, forces that surround us so completely we fail to see that they are not natural and inevitable, if we see them at all. Most will view an artwork and be either pleased or repulsed by the superficial appearance, not appreciating how much lies beneath the surface.
Postmodernism also questions authority in the sense of authorship. Can the artist really claim to be the source of his/her work in the sense of knowing what that work is about? Even if I paint a village scene, am I justified in claiming that it is simply that and nothing more? Isn't it possible (postmodernists would say inevitable) that there are influences on me when I paint of which I am unaware and that someone viewing my painting might well see these influences even in spite of my denial they were a factor in my work?
It's all about meaning - who and what makes meaning. Postmodernism is valuable for casting doubt on received wisdom, gut reaction and the idea that there is one fixed, best way in which to see any work of art. It invites digging into any work, not taking what the author of the work says about it as gospel, realizing that all creativity and its reception are loaded with baggage. Perception is not antiseptic, not clean and concise. This is not to say there is no meaning, but that it isn't one thing to the exclusion of all else.
Butler offers criticism of postmodernism as well as explanation. It can go too far, take itself too seriously, result in absurdity, deconstruction to the point of destruction, leaving pieces that are not allowed to be assembled in any way because no one way is better than another, a protesting critique that offers nothing in exchange. Since construction is power, said to be a bad thing, we are left helpless, unable to promote one interpretation over another.
This short introduction continues the very high standard I have found throughout the series. At the end of each read, I have no doubt that the author is deeply informed and has made a clear presentation. I feel informed at a basic level about the subject. What more could one ask of an introduction?
Welcome to Postmodernism, but realize that you are very late. In fact, this movement within the arts world is fading, having reached its peak in the 1980's and 90's.
The word still pops up frequently, though, so why not find out what it is all about?
Christopher Butler does us a valuable service in writing this short book that covers the topic across the arts of literature, music and painting providing many examples and a penetrating critique that carefully defines terms and is a pleasure to read.
Postmodernism questions authority. It does this by revealing the influence of cultural forces behind works of art, forces that surround us so completely we fail to see that they are not natural and inevitable, if we see them at all. Most will view an artwork and be either pleased or repulsed by the superficial appearance, not appreciating how much lies beneath the surface.
Postmodernism also questions authority in the sense of authorship. Can the artist really claim to be the source of his/her work in the sense of knowing what that work is about? Even if I paint a village scene, am I justified in claiming that it is simply that and nothing more? Isn't it possible (postmodernists would say inevitable) that there are influences on me when I paint of which I am unaware and that someone viewing my painting might well see these influences even in spite of my denial they were a factor in my work?
It's all about meaning - who and what makes meaning. Postmodernism is valuable for casting doubt on received wisdom, gut reaction and the idea that there is one fixed, best way in which to see any work of art. It invites digging into any work, not taking what the author of the work says about it as gospel, realizing that all creativity and its reception are loaded with baggage. Perception is not antiseptic, not clean and concise. This is not to say there is no meaning, but that it isn't one thing to the exclusion of all else.
Butler offers criticism of postmodernism as well as explanation. It can go too far, take itself too seriously, result in absurdity, deconstruction to the point of destruction, leaving pieces that are not allowed to be assembled in any way because no one way is better than another, a protesting critique that offers nothing in exchange. Since construction is power, said to be a bad thing, we are left helpless, unable to promote one interpretation over another.
This short introduction continues the very high standard I have found throughout the series. At the end of each read, I have no doubt that the author is deeply informed and has made a clear presentation. I feel informed at a basic level about the subject. What more could one ask of an introduction?
March 13, 2023
يمكنك تقسيم ما بعد الحداثة لشقين
الشق الفلسفي عبارة عن فلسفة تشكيكية تشكك في كل الماضي سواء فلسفة او تاريخ أو أدب أو فنون وتتهمه انه نتاج تأثير سلطوي من السلطة المتحكمة سواء كانت سياسية او دينية وتحولت مع الوقت لفلسفة سائلة وخرج من رحمها العدمية والعبثية
الشق الفني والأدبي: وهنا يكتب الكاتب ما يحلو له دون ترابط ودون لغة متماسكة ودون حبكة ويسميه رواية او شعر ويدعي انها تعبر عن كذا وليس من حقك ان تشكك فيما كتب وتدعي انه عبث
يمسك الرسام فرشاة يعبث بها دون هدف ثم يدعي انها لوحة ما بعد حداثية ليتلقفها النقاد بعد الحداثة ليفككوا المعاني العميقة
يصنع احدهم معرض فني تدخله لتكتشف انه فارغ ثم تجد ذات النقاد يتحدثون عن المعان العميقة في هذا العرض "الفارغ"
يخرج احدهم فيلما لن تستطيع ان تفهم من احداثه شيئا ولا تجد فيه ترابط او هدف وليس لأنك محدود الذكاء ولكن لأنه انتج هكذا حقا فالمخرج يعلم انه بمجرد ان يعلن انه فيلم بعد حداثي سيتلقفه النقاد وويصنعوا حوله هالة واذا شاهدته بناءا على تلك الهالة ستحتاج الى جرعة عالية من الشجاعة والثقة بالنفس لتصدع برأيك السلبي تجاهه ولتكن مستعدا لاتهامات البلاهة والجهل والحمق التي ستتوالى عليك
أما عن نقاد الفن والادب بعد الحداثي فحدث ولا حرج هم المستفيد الاكبر من صنع قداسة حول هذا الفن أو ما يسمونه فن فهم يكسبون رزقهم من الكتابة السهلة عن تعقيدات هذا الهراء ولا يحتاج منهم اي مجهود فقط بضعة مصطلحات عميقة وصعبة وعصية على الفهم فقط لتقتنع بعمق ما يتحدثون عنه وتشعر ان الخلل فيك أنت..
أتعرف ذلك الصديق الذي يتبنى نشر مقاطع تيك توك ويوتيوب لفتية وفتيات وسيدات ورجال لا يقدمون اي محتوى حقيقي
اتتذكر حين علقت عليه بقولك ما هذه التفاهة؟ اتذكر رده عن عمق تلك الفيديوهات التي بها تمرد على الواقع المعقد او عن الافكار الكبيرة خلف تلك المقاطع والتي لا يدركها امثالك من السطحيين؟
نعم هذا بالضبط ما كان يصنعه نقاد وكتاب ما بعد الحداثة
واختم باقتباس من الكتاب على لسان الفيلسوف الاميركي جون فيرل
"وصف لي ميشيل فوكو اسلوب دريدا بأنه يتسم بـ "غموض إرهابي" فالنص مكتوب بأسلوب شديد الغموض إلى حد يجعلك عاجزًا عن تحديد الموضوع بالضبط (لذا وصف "بالغموض") وعندما تنتقد ذلك يجيبك دريدا لقد اخطأت فهمي أنت أحمق (لذا وصف بال "الارهابي")"
الشق الفلسفي عبارة عن فلسفة تشكيكية تشكك في كل الماضي سواء فلسفة او تاريخ أو أدب أو فنون وتتهمه انه نتاج تأثير سلطوي من السلطة المتحكمة سواء كانت سياسية او دينية وتحولت مع الوقت لفلسفة سائلة وخرج من رحمها العدمية والعبثية
الشق الفني والأدبي: وهنا يكتب الكاتب ما يحلو له دون ترابط ودون لغة متماسكة ودون حبكة ويسميه رواية او شعر ويدعي انها تعبر عن كذا وليس من حقك ان تشكك فيما كتب وتدعي انه عبث
يمسك الرسام فرشاة يعبث بها دون هدف ثم يدعي انها لوحة ما بعد حداثية ليتلقفها النقاد بعد الحداثة ليفككوا المعاني العميقة
يصنع احدهم معرض فني تدخله لتكتشف انه فارغ ثم تجد ذات النقاد يتحدثون عن المعان العميقة في هذا العرض "الفارغ"
يخرج احدهم فيلما لن تستطيع ان تفهم من احداثه شيئا ولا تجد فيه ترابط او هدف وليس لأنك محدود الذكاء ولكن لأنه انتج هكذا حقا فالمخرج يعلم انه بمجرد ان يعلن انه فيلم بعد حداثي سيتلقفه النقاد وويصنعوا حوله هالة واذا شاهدته بناءا على تلك الهالة ستحتاج الى جرعة عالية من الشجاعة والثقة بالنفس لتصدع برأيك السلبي تجاهه ولتكن مستعدا لاتهامات البلاهة والجهل والحمق التي ستتوالى عليك
أما عن نقاد الفن والادب بعد الحداثي فحدث ولا حرج هم المستفيد الاكبر من صنع قداسة حول هذا الفن أو ما يسمونه فن فهم يكسبون رزقهم من الكتابة السهلة عن تعقيدات هذا الهراء ولا يحتاج منهم اي مجهود فقط بضعة مصطلحات عميقة وصعبة وعصية على الفهم فقط لتقتنع بعمق ما يتحدثون عنه وتشعر ان الخلل فيك أنت..
أتعرف ذلك الصديق الذي يتبنى نشر مقاطع تيك توك ويوتيوب لفتية وفتيات وسيدات ورجال لا يقدمون اي محتوى حقيقي
اتتذكر حين علقت عليه بقولك ما هذه التفاهة؟ اتذكر رده عن عمق تلك الفيديوهات التي بها تمرد على الواقع المعقد او عن الافكار الكبيرة خلف تلك المقاطع والتي لا يدركها امثالك من السطحيين؟
نعم هذا بالضبط ما كان يصنعه نقاد وكتاب ما بعد الحداثة
واختم باقتباس من الكتاب على لسان الفيلسوف الاميركي جون فيرل
"وصف لي ميشيل فوكو اسلوب دريدا بأنه يتسم بـ "غموض إرهابي" فالنص مكتوب بأسلوب شديد الغموض إلى حد يجعلك عاجزًا عن تحديد الموضوع بالضبط (لذا وصف "بالغموض") وعندما تنتقد ذلك يجيبك دريدا لقد اخطأت فهمي أنت أحمق (لذا وصف بال "الارهابي")"
March 6, 2019
هذه ليست مقدمة "قصيرة جداً" عن ما بعد الحداثة، هذه مقدمة مُكثفة ومرهقة جداً عن ما بعد الحداثة، ومن هنا تنبع أهميتها.
December 21, 2016
Saya tidak mahu menghabiskan buku ini. Satunya kerana saya sendiri masih belum biasa dengan idea-idea Derrida atau Foucalt. Saya masih belum memahami Logocentric, Deconstruction, Aphoria milik Derrida. Bagaimana pula saya mahu membaca tulisan yang meradd idea-idea ini. Takut-takut tidak adil dalam menanggapi mereka. Cehh...
Tambahan, penulis juga bukan berlatarbelakang falsafah. Christopher Butler seorang pensharah Bahasa Inggeris. Saya fikir itu tidak menjadi masalah. "Because everyone is philosopher", cuma apa yang penulis cuba patahkan hujah Deconstrutif Derrida dari sudut bahasa. Dan itu kurang menarik perhatian saya.
Jadi saya terpaksa menangguhkan dulu bacaan buku ini. Saya skip pembacaan hingga ke kesimpulan. Tidak tahulah samada mahu membaca semula atau tidak.
Jangan terpengaruh dengan review saya. Boleh jadi tepat atau tidak. Kerna sata bukan Nabi! Haha.
Selamat membaca.
Tambahan, penulis juga bukan berlatarbelakang falsafah. Christopher Butler seorang pensharah Bahasa Inggeris. Saya fikir itu tidak menjadi masalah. "Because everyone is philosopher", cuma apa yang penulis cuba patahkan hujah Deconstrutif Derrida dari sudut bahasa. Dan itu kurang menarik perhatian saya.
Jadi saya terpaksa menangguhkan dulu bacaan buku ini. Saya skip pembacaan hingga ke kesimpulan. Tidak tahulah samada mahu membaca semula atau tidak.
Jangan terpengaruh dengan review saya. Boleh jadi tepat atau tidak. Kerna sata bukan Nabi! Haha.
Selamat membaca.
September 14, 2017
I liked that this book criticizes pomo so relentlessly but the arguments in a trump era seem less relevant than ever (unfortunately for everyone)
May 18, 2018
Untuk pengenalan, okeylah.
Read
December 23, 2018Zgodno, korisno. Vredi zastajati i analizirati reference, ići tragom pomenutih likovnih skandala i primera književnih dela. I ja se slažem da je postmodernizam umro, ali još nam nisu javili. Možda je poveo kanonizatore sa sobom, pa i nema ko da nam to obznani.
August 9, 2021
i never thought i’d be one to say it but… maybe sometimes it’s ok to burn a book
Displaying 1 - 30 of 204 reviews