Show simple item record

Recuperating Deliberation in Early-Postmodern US Fiction.

dc.contributor.authorChetwynd, Alistair
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-26T22:18:57Z
dc.date.availableNO_RESTRICTION
dc.date.available2017-01-26T22:18:57Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.date.submitted2016
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/135814
dc.description.abstractMost accounts of anti-mimetic fiction’s rhetorical capacities limit them to attacks on ideas associated with the development of the traditional realist novel: for example bourgeois individualism, rational agency, the presumption that human mental experience is linear and discursive, the possibility of comprehensive social knowledge, and so on. On this “deconstructive” account, all non-realist literary forms serve the same basic rhetoric. This dissertation examines an archive of fictions that challenge this consensus, showing how the anti-realist experiments of the first generation of US postmodern fiction writers often served as vehicles for constructive, optimistic arguments about the possibility of deliberative agency in a world that takes the insights of antifoundationalist philosophy for granted. Since postmodern fiction was the archive through which our existing accounts of antimimetic fiction’s capacities were first established, this project challenges those accounts by rereading some of the era’s most canonical novels—by authors like John Barth, William Gaddis, E. L. Doctorow, and Thomas Pynchon. It shows that they are united by their engagement with the challenges the era’s philosophy posed to deliberative agency, and then shows how the distinct formal innovations in each novel generate different arguments about how to constructively respond to those challenges. This attention to the differing implications of different anti-realist forms both severs the putative equation between anti-mimetic postmodern fiction and anti-foundational poststructuralist “deconstruction,” and makes a broader case that anti-mimetic fiction’s rhetorical capacities are not constrained to the rejection of mimetic fiction’s traditional investments. The project thus provides a revisionary account of a generation of writers about whom a misleading consensus has long persisted, and offers a more fundamental challenge to existing understandings of the connection between literary forms and philosophical arguments or commitments. Early postmodern fiction emerges as a finally optimistic and constructive stage in the long US intellectual engagement with the matters of practical living in a post-foundational world, and anti-mimesis emerges as a malleable rhetorical resource rather than a prepackaged set of ideological commitments.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.subjectPostmodern Fiction
dc.subjectAnti-mimetic
dc.subjectFictionality
dc.subjectDeliberation
dc.titleRecuperating Deliberation in Early-Postmodern US Fiction.
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreenamePhDen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineEnglish Language & Literature
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantorUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
dc.contributor.committeememberCrane, Gregg David
dc.contributor.committeememberBuss, Sarah
dc.contributor.committeememberYaeger, Patricia Smith
dc.contributor.committeememberFreedman, Jonathan E
dc.contributor.committeememberWhite, Gillian Cahill
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelEnglish Language and Literature
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanities
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135814/1/alimchet_1.pdf
dc.owningcollnameDissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.