Modernism re-visited: The ‘neo-modernist’ trend in contemporary novels in English

in English
einer Doktorin der Philosophie
an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät
Zweitbegutachter: Ao.Univ.-Prof.i.R. Mag. Dr. Walter Hölbling
Graz, 2013
Ich erkläre ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbständig verfasst und
ausschließlich die angegebenen Quellen benutzt habe.
Danksagung
Um ein so umfangreiches Projekt wie dieses verwirklichen zu können, sind nicht nur Jahre der
Vorbereitung und Recherche von Seiten der Autorin notwendig, sondern auch viel
Unterstützung von ‚außen.‘
Zunächst möchte ich meinem Lehrer und ausgezeichneten Betreuer Prof. Dr. Werner Wolf
danken, von dem die thematische Anregung zu dieser Arbeit stammt und der es nie müde
wurde, mir beratend und unterstützend zur Seite zu stehen. Die vielen inspirierenden Seminare
und Vorlesungen, die ich bei ihm besucht habe, haben mich über Jahre hinweg in meinem
Studium und schlussendlich auch zur Verfassung dieser Dissertation motiviert.
Besonderer Dank gilt auch meinem Vater, Dr. Franz Zebinger, dessen kritische Lektüre
meiner Arbeit mich in vielerlei Weise angeregt hat. Die zahlreichen Gespräche und
Diskussionen, die ich mit ihm über dieses Projekt geführt habe, haben meine Gedanken oft in
neue Bahnen gelenkt.
Meinem Mann, Amir Jacobi, sei für seine stete Unterstützung und sein Verständnis für all die
Zeit, die ich ohne ihn in der Welt des ‚Neo-modernismus‘ verbracht habe, gedankt.
3
1.1 The trend towards modernism ..................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Relevance of the ‘neo-modernist’ trend and the problems involved ........................................... 7
1.3 Delimitation of the field and focus of the study ........................................................................... 8
1.4 Structure of the argument ............................................................................................................ 9
2. Theoretical concepts for analysis ................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Prototypicality ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Theories and terminology of textual relations: ‘intertextuality’ and related concepts ............. 21
2.2.1 ‘Intertextuality’ .................................................................................................................. 21
2.2.2 Extension of ‘intertextuality’: ‘individual reference’ vs. ‘system reference’ .................... 26
2.2.3 ‘Hypertextuality’ (Genette) and ‘transfictionality’ (Ryan)................................................ 28
2.2.4 Survey of terms employed for describing textual relations ............................................... 37
3. Modernism and ‘neo-modernism’: literary-historical and methodological reflections ........... 40
3.1 Modernism ................................................................................................................................. 40
3.1.1 ‘Literary high modernism’: prototypical characteristics ................................................... 41
3.1.2 Virginia Woolf’s concept of modernism: Mrs Dalloway as a ‘good’ prototypical example ... 46
3.2 ‘Neo-modernism’ ....................................................................................................................... 62
3.2.3 Focus and method of analysis............................................................................................ 76
4.1 ‘Neo-modernist’ (consciousness) novels: various forms and elements of ‘neo-modernism’ .... 78
4.1.1 A. L. Kennedy’s Paradise: consciousness lost.................................................................. 79
4.1.2 John Banville’s The Sea: the past present ....................................................................... 100
4.1.3 Ali Smith’s The Accidental: four consciousnesses and a ‘film-being’ ............................ 126
4.1.4 Comparison and summary ............................................................................................... 150
4
4.2 The ‘neo-modernist’ single-day novel: flirting with Mrs Dalloway ....................................... 159
4.2.1 Michael Cunningham’s The Hours: homage and improvisation ..................................... 162
4.2.2 Robin Lippincott’s Mr. Dalloway: homage and emulation ............................................. 183
4.2.3 John Lanchester’s Mr Phillips: a comical anti-Dalloway ............................................... 205
4.2.4 Ian McEwan’s Saturday: covert homage ........................................................................ 215
4.2.5 Comparison and summary ............................................................................................... 233
5. Results: the existence of the ‘neo-modernist trend’ ................................................................... 242
6. Cultural-historical functions of ‘neo-modernism’ – attempts at explanation .......................... 255
6.1 Homage to modernist writers and texts ................................................................................... 256
6.2 ‘Neo-modernism’ as an expression of continued metaphysical uncertainty ........................... 259
6.3 ‘Boosting’ cultural memory – with added didactic functions .................................................. 262
6.4 Ethical functions ...................................................................................................................... 267
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 273
Appendix A: Survey of possibly relevant novels not included in the analysis ................................. 278
Appendix B: ‘Imperfect’ single-day novels ......................................................................................... 280
8. References ...................................................................................................................................... 291
1.1 The trend towards modernism
Recent years have seen a turn towards modernist techniques and intertextual references to
modernist texts in novels in English. Authors of literary modernism are made the protagonists of
some novels, 1 while in other texts subjectivity and inner events are foregrounded by using
modernist devices. The productive reception and re-evaluation of modernist works and/or
techniques has thus apparently become ‘fashionable.’ This trend has not gone unnoticed by
literary scholars, 2 however, the turn towards modernism has been regarded as a postmodernist
phenomenon or “a new phase of postmodernism.” (Vera Nünning 2008: 387) Nünning
diagnoses an increased interest for realist as well as modernist devices in recent novels by
prominent authors. However, a fully-fledged combination of realism and modernism seems to
be a conflict in itself, even if one admits that modernist literature can have some residual realist
elements; furthermore, if, as Nünning claims, postmodernist devices are replaced by modernist
ones (cf. ibid), how can postmodernism persist or reach a ‘new phase’? According to Nünning
“[…] modernism seems to be more attractive at the turn of the twenty-first century than it was a
hundred years ago.” (ibid: 388) An interesting – if somewhat contradictory – concept. While
Nünning is mainly interested in the ethical component of this surge in modernist devices, and
does not attempt to provide a closer definition of this trend, it seems possible that there is more
to this phenomenon than just postmodernist re-doing.
For some time now, highbrow literature has been more ‘serious’ and less ironic than it used
to be in postmodernism. Concepts such as ‘neo-realism’ 3 (Toth 2010) have recently been
described: irony is no longer part of this type of literature. Assuming some ‘system pressure,’
might not also a return to modernist devices be associated with a lack of irony? If so, then it
1 Virginia Woolf is portrayed in Michael Cunningham’s The Hours (1998). Katherine Mansfield, who – like Woolf
– was a member of the Bloomsbury Group, is the heroine of the novel Mansfield by C.K.Steads (2004). Henry
James, who was not a writer of high modernism but prepared the ground for modernism, is the protagonist of four
novels (cf. David Lodge 2002 and 2006, online; Irina Bauder-Begerow and Caroline Lusin 2007: 243): Emma
Tennant, Felony (2002), Colm Tóibin, The Master (2004), Michiel Heyns, The Typewriter’s Tale (2004), and
Lodge, Author, Author (2004). 2 See Werner Wolf 2001 and 2007a; V. Nünning 2007a and 2008; Bauder-Begerow and Lusin 2007.
3 Not to be confused with the ‘neo-realism’ of the 1950s; see Rubin Rabinovitz 1967. Both concepts of ‘neo-
realism’ are described in chapter 3.2.
7
would be more than questionable whether postmodernism experiences yet another extension of
its ‘death throes’ in a return to or recycling of modernism.
This possibly new departure of the novel in English will tentatively be called ‘neo-
modernism’ 4 – which is to be understood as an umbrella term. It can cover various phenomena
but points to a central core: that prototypically modernist devices and elements (see chapter
3.1.1) are used on the levels of story and discourse, and that modernist themes, aesthetics, norms
and functions are re-evaluated. Modernist devices have to be dominant (as opposed to other
elements such as realism and postmodernism) in order to justify the term. And, above all, they
have to be used without ironic intentions.
This study attempts to define and describe the ‘neo-modernist’ trend by analysing relevant
texts (for a list see chapter 1.3) with the aim of justifying that a new term and thus cultural
construct is indeed required. Furthermore, the cultural significance and functions of this trend
towards modernism will be examined: in general, literary modernism is perceived as a marginal
phenomenon, which makes the recent interest in and success of ‘neo-modernist’ texts even more
interesting.
1.2 Relevance of the ‘neo-modernist’ trend and the problems involved
Where does ‘neo-modernism’ come from? First of all, one must not forget the immediate
context of the ‘problematic novel’ 5 of ‘muted postmodernism’;
6 highbrow literature has for
decades been dominated by a ‘relaxed’ form of postmodernism. Also, especially from the 1980s
and 1990s, the novel has seen a development which has been described by Ansgar Nünning as a
‘return to narration’ and a ‘synthesis of tradition and innovation’ 7 (cf. 2000: 190), by which he
means a creative adoption of all kinds of styles: an ‘innovative transformation of the literary
tradition’ (cf. 2000: 210):
4 ‘Neo-modernism’ was the subject of a seminar held by Werner Wolf, Graz University, in spring 2008. The term
does not refer to its earlier uses as a synonym for postmodernism (Frank Kermode 1968) or in architecture (Charles
Jencks 1990). See also my Graz university publication on this project (Zebinger 2009). 5 See Lodge’s “The Novelist at the Crossroads.” (1969/1977) Described in detail in chapter 3.2.2.
6 See Ulrich Broich 1993. Described in chapter 3.2.2.
7 “[...] die Rückkehr zum Erzählen sowie die darin zum Ausdruck kommende Synthese aus Tradition und
Innovation […].“ (A. Nünning 2000: 190; compare also 1998: 160)
8
Wirklichkeitsbezug und ästhetische Selbstreflexivität schließen sich im zeitgenössischen
Roman nicht mehr aus. Seit den 1960er Jahren ist es kein Widerspruch mehr, in mehr oder
weniger realistischer Weise eine Geschichte zu erzählen und zugleich den kreativen Prozeß
des Schreibens innerhalb eines Romans zu reflektieren. Bei der Wiederentdeckung des
Erzählens handelt es sich somit nicht um eine Rückkehr zu prämodernen realistischen
Erzählformen, sondern um eine kreative Aneignung und Verarbeitung des gesamten
Spektrums literarischer Konventionen. (ibid: 211)
This trend continues until the present day. At first glance, a ‘return to narration’ seems to
contradict a return to modernism, which is, after all, known for its eventlessness and lack of
story. Around the year 2000, however, a combination of pre-modernist (i.e. realist), modernist
and postmodernist techniques became possible. (cf. Werner Wolf 2001, V. Nünning 2007a and
2008) The general hybridity of the contemporary literature in English (cf. A. Nünning 2000, V.
Nünning 2007a) is excellent for developing innovative and appealing ‘open’ styles that can
attract a broad audience and are also critically acclaimed. Assuming a certain degree of ‘system
pressure,’ ‘neo-modernism,’ too, is likely to be a hybrid style of synthesis (and innovation), in
which modernist, realist and postmodernist devices unite.
On the other hand, the hybridity common to contemporary literature creates an unfavourable
basis for justifying the necessity of defining such terms as ‘neo-modernism’ – a new style that is
‘only’ characterized by its dominant references to modernism (references that, furthermore,
could be quite different from each other as the texts are not likely to highlight the exact same
features of modernism). A main challenge of this study will therefore be to offset the
phenomenon of ‘neo-modernism’ against the current ‘anarchy’ of hybrid styles, the still
influential ‘muted postmodernism’ and the potentially conflicting concept of ‘neo-realism’
(Toth). That requires a set of defining characteristics for ‘neo-modernist’ texts in order to show
that ‘neo-modernism’ is more than a mere rehash of modernism, and more than just
postmodernist ironic recycling.
1.3 Delimitation of the field and focus of the study
According to Irina Bauder-Begerow and Caroline Lusin, modernist themes and techniques are
especially noticeable in novels written after the year 2000 (cf. 2007: 244, 255) but the late 1990s
had already seen a development in this direction – the decade preceding 2008 (cf. V. Nünning
2008: 388) can therefore be regarded as a plausible time frame for research. It seems, however,
9
that the greatest density of ‘neo-modernist’ works can be found between 1998 and 2005. After
2005 the trend seems to be to use individual modernist devices 8 . The focus of this study
consequently lies on the period between 1998 and 2005.
Only novels with noticeable modernist features are taken into consideration – i.e. if
modernist techniques and elements of some kind are employed in a dominant way. The texts to
be analysed in the course of this study were all written in or after 1998: A.L. Kennedy’s
Paradise (2004), John Banville’s The Sea (2005) and Ali Smith’s The Accidental (2005) share a
concern about subjectivity, memory, identity and consciousness. Michael Cunningham’s The
Hours (1998), Robin Lippincott’s Mr. Dalloway (1999), John Lanchester’s Mr Phillips (2000)
and Ian McEwan’s Saturday (2005) have in common that they are single-day novels and that
they refer to Virginia Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway (1925) in different ways.
1.4 Structure of the argument
The first part of this study is dedicated to the theoretical basis required for the analysis. Chapter
2 explains the theoretical concept used for categorisation – prototypicality – as well as the terms
used for analysing intertextual relations. The concept of prototype semantics is often employed
for categorisation in the humanities but needs introduction as it has been borrowed from an
entirely different branch of science. Although having been popularised and being widely used, it
still is not familiar to everyone. A short introduction is therefore provided in chapter 2.1.
Prototype theory will be utilised to position ‘neo-modernist’ texts in relation to modernism,
realism and postmodernism. In a similar manner the term ‘intertextuality’ has been rather
‘overstretched’, having been defined and re-defined many times. It is by now in need of a clear
definition as it can mean different things. The relevant terms are defined in chapter 2.2.
Chapter 2 precedes a short introduction to literary high modernism (chapter 3.1): its
underlying concepts, as well as its ‘prototypical’ characteristics will be outlined in chapter 3.1.1.
In chapter 3.1.2 literary high modernism and Woolf’s personal concept thereof will be explained
on the example of Woolf’s Mrs Dalloway (1925; subsequently abbreviated as MD) – an
inspirational novel for ‘neo-modernism’ and the immediate pre-text for some ‘neo-modernist’
texts. In chapter 3.2 a preliminary definition of ‘neo-modernism’ itself is provided.
8 A survey of texts considered for this study can be found in Appendix A.
10
In the analysis of the texts (chapter 4), the prototypical characteristics of modernism will be
used as a reference point for determining the degree to which the novels are ‘neo-modernist.’
The next step will be to confirm or re-define ‘neo-modernism’ (chapter 5) as a prototypical
category and, lastly, determine the cultural implications and functions of the phenomenon of
‘neo-modernism’ in chapter 6.
2. Theoretical concepts for analysis
The theoretical concepts explained in this chapter have in common that some of the terms
connected with them – although generally known – have become ambiguous due to over- and
repeated re-definition. In order to avoid confusion in the analysis and to pin down their exact
meaning for this context, ‘prototype theory,’ ‘intertextuality’ (with special emphasis on
‘hypertextuality’) and ‘transfictionality’ will be introduced in detail.
2.1 Prototypicality
Prototype theory 9 has become a rather popular method of categorization in the humanities.
Although the theory has psycholinguistic origins it has found its way even into literary studies
as a means of lending structure to categories. A short introduction of the points most important
for this study seems adequate as the theory has seen some development since it was first
formulated in studies by Eleanor Rosch in the early 1970s.
2.1.1 Prototype theory
Rosch and Carolyn B. Mervis (cf. 1975: 573f.) oppose the traditional Aristotelian view that
category membership is “[...] a digital, all-or-none-phenomenon [...] [and that] categories are
logical bounded entities [...]” in which items possess “[...] a simple set of criteria features [...]
[and] a full and equal degree of membership [...].” Rosch and Mervis argue that some categories
are ‘analogue’ – i.e. not all of their entities share the same degree of membership – and that this
analogue structure needs to be represented logically. Their theory states that a prototype is
central to a category as its best example. This implies that there are category members which are
less typical than the prototype (cf. Kleiber 1993: 31) – a significant move away from the
classical approach that all members of a category must share exactly the same attributes.
Initially, in its most popular version, prototype theory is the result of a more experiential
approach to traditional ways of categorization. In the early 1970s, Rosch experimented on
9 For a basic introduction to prototype semantics see e.g. Georges Kleiber 1993 and Friedrich Ungerer/Hans J.
Schmid 1996. For more detail refer to Dirk Geeraerts 1997.
12
by asking participants to point out the most
typical category members, accepting only the most commonly named prototypes. Categories
and their typical attributes were defined with a prototype serving as a cognitive reference point.
(cf. Kleiber 1993: 31f.) Rosch changed this approach in the next version of her theory.
In Rosch’s mid-1970s version of the prototype theory, the structure of a category is defined
by the prototype that stands at its centre as its best example, which now is seen as a combination
of typical attributes. The prototype can therefore be defined by a list of attributes – an important
shift in the theory. It is still possible to talk about a prototype, however:
Wenn es dennoch immer noch angemessen ist, von einem besten Vertreter oder (in
geringerem Maße) von einem besten Exemplar zu sprechen, so liegt das daran, daß die
Eigenschaften, auf denen der Prototyp aufbaut, vorherrschende, für die Kategorie
charakteristische Eigenschaften sind; daraus ergibt sich, daß die Gesamtheit dieser
Eigenschaften tatsächlich am besten die entsprechende Kategorie repräsentiert und daher in
diesem Sinne als ‚bester Vertreter‘ oder Prototyp dieser Kategorie angesehen werden kann.
(Kleiber 1993: 43)
Once a prototype can be defined by the means of a list of typical attributes, the theory becomes
more abstract and more useful for categorization in general. The prototype is now perceived as
the category member with the highest number of typical attributes 12
rather than simply the most
typical category member. (cf. ibid) In this abstract approach it is even “[...] possible that no
actual member of a category has all the features in the prototype specification. In that case, the
core of the category may be represented by a group of the highest scoring members.” (Alan
Cruse 1999/2011: 60) This means the abstract prototype specification (a list of typical attributes)
need not correspond in every detail with the highest scoring and most prototypical category
entities. By comparison with other – related – categories, the ‘legitimacy’ of the prototypical
entities as to their category membership can be further ascertained:
Prototypical members of cognitive categories have the largest number of attributes in
common with other members of the category and the smallest number of attributes which
also occur with members of neighbouring categories. This means that in terms of attributes,
10
See Rosch 1975; Rosch and Mervis 1975. Cf. also Geeraerts 1997: 12f.; The participants had to rate words from
a list, assigning descriptions ranging from ‘very good example’ to ‘very bad example’ in what Rosch called a
‘Goodness-of-Exemplar’ rating. (cf. Cruse 1999/2011: 57f.) 11
Given a list of birds, study participants graded their typicality: birds such as a robin or sparrow would get a more
central position in the category ‘Bird’ than peacocks or, even more peripheral, penguins. (cf. e.g. Jean Aitchison
1987/2003: 55; Cliff Goddard 1998/2011: 25f.) 12
See also Danièle Dubois 1982: 602.
13
prototypical members are maximally distinct from the prototypical members of other
categories. (Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 29)
In Rosch’s mid-70s version of the theory, category membership of other, less prototypical
entities is defined by their resemblance with the prototype 13
. The more an entity resembles the
prototype, the more it is a ‘good’ representative of the category. This means that category
membership is not the same as typicality: categories take the structure of a scale of typicality
with more typical members (‘good’ examples) in a more central and less typical ones (‘bad’
examples) in a more peripheral position. Category boundaries are therefore conceived of as
‘fuzzy’ 14
(cf. Kleiber 1993: 139): “Bad examples [...] share only a small number of attributes
with other members of their category, but have several attributes which belong to other
categories as well, which is […] another way of saying that category boundaries are fuzzy.”
(Ungerer/Schmid 1996: 29) The ‘fuzziness’ of the boundaries as well as the fact that category
members need not share exactly the same attributes create a high level of flexibility as to
category formation; however, Rosch and Mervis had to find a way to justify why attributes were
allowed to be missing.
: they are shared by some but not all category
members (Rosch and Mervis 1975: 580). Since the prototype theory does not require all
category members to have exactly the same attributes,…