A good friend of mine remarked that South American literature reminds him of Bengali literature, and I replied back that while my knowledge of Bengali literature was scant, it did remind me of Malayalam literature. Of course, he was rather keen to observe that all four societies practice some form of Communism/Socialism or Marxism, and perhaps that may explain their obsession with the human condition.
That did set me thinking.
One of my most favorite authors of all time is Jorge Luis Borges. Unlike some fortunate souls, I did not discover Borges until a few years ago (thanks to another good friend). However, Borges to me captured the spirit of surrealism in literature (and a very intellectual feel, at that) that very few have. He combined a good narrative with what was effectively a literary puzzle, and he spoke in metaphors. His books were nothing more than ideas being put to text (or an attempt to, at the very least) and they reminded me of the artist who paints for art alone.
(This is in contrast with many writers today — who I will equate to pop singers of today — that write crass literature with the express intent of monetizing their works, as opposed to writing for its own sake.)
But make no mistake. He is just as deeply concerned with the human condition — just a tad bit differently. The Babylon Lottery mocks at the role of chance in our lives; the intellectuals of Tlön and Uqbar are making statements on idealism vs. materialism; and in Al-Mu’tasim, Mir Bahadur Ali, while a social outcast in Bombay, seeks the perfect man. My friend Juan says that Borges is for intellectuals — I would have to beg to differ and say that if anything, Borges’ works are the perfect mockery of intellectualism in all its forms.
Another author that I enjoy (whose books, as the same friend would attest to, are widely possessed (but not read) by literary poseur avant-garde wannabe readers everywhere) is Gabriel García Márquez. His writing, while set in magical realism and is quite distinct from Borges’ surrealism, reminds me of our world where the magical things are normal, and the normal things are — in their own way — magical. And of course, what is important is not their importance (or lack thereof), but rather that they are as part of the story of the human condition as a table and chair are part of the furniture in a room. Of course, they are certainly there, but that is not the point of what Márquez is talking about.
So, how many so-called postmodernist writers do I read that do talk about the human condition? And while one could certainly argue that SF (and by this I mean Speculative Fiction, the larger umbrella encompassing science fiction and fantasy) stalwarts like Herbert and Asimov (and Clarke to some extent) talk about the human condition, I would argue that is not necessarily their focus. To bring forth a quote from Stargate -
Science fiction is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said, “Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all.”
Therefore, while people like Asimov certainly saw the necessity of science to improve the human condition, they felt the necessity of a grassroots approach to cultivating science, and to them, science fiction was a facilitator. Therefore, while the consequences of science fiction may be improving the human condition and serve as our salvation, the necessity of talking about it in their stories was moot.
Of course, there are a few (like Gene Wolfe) that, if briefly, do touch upon the subject. But to me, Wolfe’s work is more closely related to Márquez and Borges — a fantastic literary construct in a fictional world, and art for art’s own sake.
The same goes for fantasy. Neil Gaiman uses elements of fantasy and dark humor — however, his works are not necessarily statements on the human condition.
Neal Stephenson? A blend of SF and history. William Gibson? Ditto. Joseph Heller? Satire. Kurt Vonnegut? Humor and satire. Salman Rushdie? Political statement. Paul Auster? Mystery (and sheer absurdity).
Therefore, in my mind, postmodernist literature and the human condition aren’t necessarily related in any particular form. Sure, there are some postmodernist authors that talk about it, but then, they talk about a lot of other things too. But then, to be completely honest and fair, I’m but a novice.
So, what are people’s thoughts on this?
RSS 2.0
Add to Technorati
Save to Del.icio.us
Take it back
