--On Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:03 AM +0000 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> On 8/8/01, Nancy Gish writes:
>> "Modernism" is not any more easily pinned down
>> or made coherent than "Romanticism." That is why
>> many scholars now use the term "Modernisms."
It may be true that "modernism" does not signify, but if it doesn't,
how would "modernisms" overcome the same problem, for Pete's sake,
unless the assertion is that that the term, singular or plural, merely
refers to simple chronology (if there is such a thing), with no
overriding common trait(s)? In which case, yes, the whole kibosh is
meaningless. True? If modernism doesn't mean anything, pluralizing it
won't help. (Nothing comes from nothing...)
Which would suit me, as then, what on earth would "post-modernism" be?
Perl's "distinctions" seem almost to take being distracted by
distraction one more step, i.e. classifying the distractions,--but not
really, because the end is the same.
Just a thought,