It was as if we got back from the war and were like: "Man, this novel should have an ending"
"Nah...it doesn't need one..."
So, postmodernism essentially just allows people to do weird stuff with books that hasn't really been done before (at least in the era when that book was written, as I'm going to assume the definition of postmodernism changes depending on it's precursor (modernism).
The Poisonwood Bible exhibits more than a few of these characteristics. For one, it is written after the war, and the time period it is reflecting on is the area around 1960, with the Congo's independence being a big deal.
But, postmodernism really is seen in this novel mainly by the use of narrators (and how there aren't numbers to the "chapters," but I' don't think that is nearly as significant). Kingsolver uses multiple narrators in this novel, which adds a form of insight and depth to this particular story, which is not seen very often in the other great literary works from the time period when it was written. While most novels that we cover in our English language/literature and composition classes during school focus on a main character, this book, with it's narrators, doesn't seem to focus on any one person, but rather the sincerity of the family as a whole, which allows the story to gather insight from many more sources than what most novels are capable of. A good example is how multiple people mention the poisonwood tree, and how the novel is able to gain insight from each child and their experiences with the tree, either personal or watching their father handle it like a dumb American.
I saw a lot of similarities between our posts on postmodernism, we both mentioned the multiple narrators and lack of chapter numbers. Good example with the poisonwood tree. I like the Earth in the background of your blog.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick that the different perspectives of Poisonwood tree was a good specific example. Also, if Kingsolver's trying to focus on the family as a whole, why didn't she include Nathan Price as one of the narrators? I would think he is considered a fairly important character.
ReplyDeleteHaha I like your evaluation of postmodernism. Perhaps only certain authors can be postmodernists and succeed? Is postmodernism in many ways a standard of writing? Like well established authors can basically write and ignore all rules of standard novel format and composition and yet instead of being criticized like an up and coming writer, they are identified as postmodernists? The question is which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Do authors become postmodernists when they venture outside of literary and composition norms. Or does being well renowned and virtually untouchable by critics allow the authors to be literary geniuses and therefore are referred to as postmodernists because any other term to describe their complete lack of normality would be considered insulting?
ReplyDeleteI thought you discussed the significance of the multiple narrators very well, but isn't there anything else in the book that's relevant to postmodernism? The use of a five-year-old narrator and Adah's unconventional, palindrome-filled style spring to mind.
ReplyDeleteI think you captured the postmodernism features of this book very well. Like Ynez said I think the actual narrators are significant too. With Adah specifically, she constantly saw the world in its worst state growing up because of her condition. Thus she lacks sensitivity to the wrongdoings in the Congo and she possesses a viewpoint that challenges the way most would be inclined to view the situation at the time.
ReplyDelete