Talk:Literary modernism

Misc
I agree - the writing style and, more generally, the organisation of the article is shambolic. What is more, and potentially what is more damaging, is that bold and mis-informed claims are made throughout as to the nature of literary modernism. Saying things like 'Modernist literature is defined by its move away from Romanticism' is overstating the case by some way. Certainly, writers like Virginia Woolf expressed a desire to move away from Victorian literary tendencies, but intent is not always equal to result.

There needs to be more acceptance of literary modernism (and here I'm thinking mainly of the big guns: Joyce, Woolf, Stein, Eliot, Pound and perhaps even Conrad and Kipling) as being not a single entity working in harmony, but rather as a group of writers who share 'family resemblances', if not one homogenous purpose. Conroy23 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article reads as though it were written by an 8th grader. I came to the discussion page with hope that someone would be working to improve the overall tenor of the article. Instead, there is more of the same; banal commentary, name dropping ("Acmeism!"...pleeeease!),and the silly out of place comment about Ruben Dario (whoever he may be, he doesn't belong in this article).

Is anyone interested in actually fixing this article? If so we should form a discussion ring..

Was Modernism only an Anglo-American movement? Where is Russian Symbolism? Acmeism? Russian Futurism? I don't speak about other literatures here. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are the early pioneers? Thomas Mann, Marcel Proust and late Thomas Hardy? cfp 08:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC) hi

A technical note: the link to Beckett's Happy Days has been replaced with a link to the television show of the same title.

"a common motif in Modernist fiction is that of an alienated individual--a dysfunctional individual trying in vain to make sense of a predominantly urban and fragmented society". This quotation does not refer to its author! Who said that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.74.176 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that sentence as a part of my (perhaps futile) effort to clean up some of the writing and make the article a bit more up to standards. However, I'm no expert on the subject, so I could only edit the some of the obvious repetition and poor grammar. This still defiantly needs work.--Sverez (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruben Dario sentence
An anonymous user keeps removing this sentence. Can the anonymous user either write a comment why here or stop doing it? I personally have never heard of Dario, but I am prepared believe it until someone who knows what they're talking about tells me it's rubbish. Rightly or wrongly, I think anonymous users will never have the credibility required to make this kind of claim. (Though it certainly needs a citation in any case. Who added it initially?) --cfp 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who added it in the first place, but when I saw there was a discussion over it (removing it or keeping it), I modified the sentence to give it better context, changing it from "The father of Modernism is the poet Ruben Dario of Nicaragua" to "One of the "fathers" of Latin American Modernism is the poet Ruben Dario of Nicaragua" which is much less loaded. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Latin American literary Modernism so I won't object to or confirm the claim, but to say he is the father of Modernism as a whole would definitely be incorrect. --TM 05:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh sorry I misunderstood your last edit. Didn't realise the claim had been inserted twice. It's fine as it is for now then. Nice work changing the controversial sentence into one that barely stakes any claim at all. It's always the safest option! --cfp 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ruben Dario is considered the father of Modernismo, the Modernism of the Spanish-speaking world. Though Modernism and Modernismo have similarities, they are NOT the same movement. There is a Modernismo stub on Wikipedia English. That's where Ruben Dario belongs.

bad article- needs expert
I wish someone really educated on the subject would drop in. "Modernist literature is defined by its move away from Romanticism, venturing into subject matter that is traditionally mundane"... Romanticism is also marked by mundane subject matter. food for thought.


 * I'm not an expert, but as far as "mundane" goes, I suspect it depends a lot on which Romantics we're talking about. Certainly, a lot of the most prominent Romantics like Coleridge, Lord Byron, and Hoelderlin took on subject matters that were far from mundane (i.e. Don Juan, ancient Greece, crazy sailing expeditions). But even in the works which do, in some sense, have a mundane subject matter (i.e. some guy walking in the woods), we might say the real subject matter is spiritual, and it tends to be treated in a way that's anything but mundane.  So I do suspect there's a real contrast to be made here with modernist works, where the subject can just be a bureaucrat going through some bills, without the same spiritual flights of fancy.


 * As far as the article overall goes, though, I completely agree it needs a lot of work, and, like you, I'm very suspicious of the emphasis on and interpretation of Romanticism--although I'd point to different parts. It's much more common for literary modernism to be understood in juxtaposition to literary realism rather than romanticism--so this article gives a rather distorted treatment of the standard account.  In addition, the subject-object-medium picture the article attributes to Gelpi is not characteristically associated with Romanticism, so much as philosophical modernism (which dates back to Descartes in the 17th century, and persists through 19th century Romanticism into the 20th century).  It probably is right to understand literary modernism as somehow challenging the subject-object picture, but the connection with Romanticism is dubious.

worldwide view
This article lacks the coverage of writers of the size of Ruben Dario,Juan Ramón Jimenez,Pablo Neruda,Cernuda,the generation of the boom of latinamerican literature....so its pretty US/Europe centric,also i think the term modernism here should make more reference to the modernist movement understood as the blend and of romanticism,parnasianism;the revaloration of the art for the artthat fall out favor with the arrive of realism and naturalist movements,instead of the writers of the 20th century,that are not joint by any way you look at them:Hemingway wass a realist;joyce,Virginia Wolf,Faulkner were vanguardist,and so on--Andres rojas22 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for Article Improvement
I've heard Modernism more often contrasted with Realism than with Romanticism, but generally this contrast is drawn in terms of a 20th Century identification of "mimesis" with "verisimilitude." Aristotle's use of "mimesis" was much more nuanced. The "stream of consciousness" found Joyce's Ulysses or Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse is a form of psychological realism; perhaps the contrast has more to do with changes in the Enlightenment values that underlie Realism: that the Universe can be subjected to exaustive rational analysis. Beginning with the mystery novel as a genre, in Poe or Wilkie Collins's Moonstone for example, one finds the convergence of a literary movement wherein facts are deliberately witheld from the reader with Freudian analysis, which popularized the notion that we are not aware of all that is in our consciousness.

Dadaism as a force in Modernism was significant, as was Surrealism (which began as a literary movement centered on automatic writing -- there was actually a debate in early Surrealism as to whether Surrealist painting would even be possible). Many early Surrealist writers found inspiration in Isidore Ducasse (le Comte de Lautréamont).

The shift from a Kantian "art for art's sake" to a more object-status-oriented approach to artistic production was important but gradual, and never really a completed project on the part of critics; Clement Greenberg's popularization of medium specificity was important in this process; as was a shift from artwork understood in terms of traditional conventions (a painting is a framed image hanging on a wall) to artwork understood in terms of the literary/critical statement it produced (how does painting become sculptural, philosophical, or a record of an artist's actions). Kurt Schwitters offered an interesting demonstration that "logically consistent poetry" consists of arbitrary letters juxtaposed one against the other, on the basis that the signification of words is not unequivocal (the word "tree" might invoke a poplar for one person and a maple for another); equivocality and polyphony became stylistic considerations along this line of reasoning. Much of Modernism's effects can be characterized by an interest in novelty (what is new is good, what is old is smelly), and the self-conscious rejection of traditional approaches to aesthetic problemsolving.

The beginnings of Modernism can be pushed back to the mid-1800's, yet the 1910's and 1920's saw Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, and other smaller -isms all wrestling with similar sorts of aesthetic problems, which often involved industrial urbanization, fragmented [consumer] landscapes, and other sorts of themes mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulabell petunia (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I just had a quick read of the article and the claim that modernist literature can be characterised by a shift from an epistemological dominant to an ontological dominant is contrary to a mass of literature on the subject. Brian Mchale's influential study of postmodern literature is, in fact, based on the exact opposite premise. All opinions are open to debate, but I think the opinions expressed by McHale have greater reasonance than this article currently offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.30.217 (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to make some improvement to this item, I'm thinking of using material from the modernism article. The emphasis would be more on literature than theory and history. This is suggested (hopefully) as a temporary measure. Are there comments or objections? Rwood128 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Incredulity towards Metanarratives
I'm removing the "Incredulity towards Metanarratives" listed in traits, as it firstly contradicts one of the other listed traits, I.E. "use of classical allusions"; secondly, this is contradicted by many of the Modernist works listed in this article, such as The Waste Land, Ulysses and The Sound and the Fury, among others; thirdly skepticism towards meta-narratives is a trait found more often in Post-Modernism, and, although related, the two they have very different approaches to the issue of meta-narrative. --75.139.37.215 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses and the start of modernism!
Ulysses is certainly a major, early work of modernism, but the first? The discussion of modernism, and related topics, on Wikipedia leaves me feeling very gloomy about the whole Wikipedia project, especially as it relates to literature and the arts. But perhaps the cross-section I've viewed recently is an anomaly? Rwood128 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Franz Kafka, Marcel Proust, D. H. Lawrence, Andrei Bely, Gottfried Benn, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats, Dorothy Richardson, and numerous other literary modernists published work several years prior to James Joyce's Ulysses. There is also a need to consider earlier writers like Fyodor Dostoevsky, Joseph Conrad, Henry James, etc. I'll try, if and when I have time, to submit a revision. But maybe there's a volunteer out there?

Rwood128 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics of Modernity/Modernism
This section is redundant and I plan to delete it -- unless anyone objects. Rwood128 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Modernist writers list
There are a number of writers listed who surely aren't normally considered modernists: Frost, Steinbeck, etc, etc. Shouldn't they be removed? Rwood128 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I added Lu Xun to the list of modernist writers. Lu Xun must have been (actually, must still be considered) one of the most influential writers: he was the first modernist writer in 20th century China, whose stories and non-fiction have had enormous influence on the Chinese intellectual psyche and are still read by all educated Chinese as part of their mandatory curriculum. Lu Xun was both an important modernizer both of Chinese society and of Chinese literature (e.g., introducing 'vernacular' language into serious Chinese literature, which until then had been written strictly in Classical Chinese, or using the surreal to criticize Chinese society.) Please do not hesitate to approach me if you disagree with my judgement.. Sbashi (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify why Lu Xun is a modernist and not just a "modernizer"? The Wikipedia article on him, for example, includes comments that suggests that he was not a modernist, like the following: "He wrote using both traditional Chinese conventions and 19th century European literary forms." Perhaps, however, the Lu Xun article needs improving, especially as you refer to his use of the surreal. Rwood128 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your remark. I did not work on the Lu Xun article itself. Although most of it is factually true, I believe what is missing from the article is subjective assessment of Lu Xun's modernism by authoritative Western literary critics. In fact, there exists a large body of literature on Lu Xun, as China's most famous modern writer. If I understand the consensus right, we could say that Lu Xun wrote in many different forms (after all, he lived in a volatile age), not all of which could be called 'modernist'. However, his most famous works of fiction are two collections of short stories many of which are undeniably modernist. As a translator of important Western works of literature he must have been able to make the distinction himself. Lu Xun used traditional Chinese conventions because he was one of the first to introduce everyday language into Chinese literature, which had been dominated for thousands of years by a separate 'literary language'. To take the short stories as an example - there at times he writes introductions in the old style that contrast with the rest of the content, which is in a revolutionary new form.

That said, if academic sources are needed to back up my claims, I would be happy to provide examples (they are copyrighted) sbuh (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact, Lu Xun's literature could be said to be more 'modern' than his ideas, which combined admiration of modern values with pessimism about Chinese society's ability to adapt and an almost Confucian understanding of the responsibility of intellectuals... so I understand the distinction you are making. sbuh (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A citation would be valuable, especially as the article on Lu Xun doesn't discuss Modernism. Some of what you say might be added to this article as well as that on Lu Xun, with the addition of references to specific modernist techniques and approaches. Rwood128 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It happens that the top three results when you google search ´Lu Xun and Modernism´ are already quite useful (I read them before). e.g. Tang Xiaobing (1992) Lu Xun's "Diary of a Madman" and a Chinese Modernism. PMLA 107(5): pp. 1222-1234 makes an argument. Please note that many of these ´arguments´ are necessary because Chinese topics are increasingly being studied not as unique Chinese phenomena, but as manifestations of general phenomena as the country becomes more and more accessible to ´normal´ researchers and scholars (as opposed to specialized Sinologists). sbuh (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Literary modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090706032827/http://www.library.yale.edu:80/beinecke/ to http://www.library.yale.edu/beinecke/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Literary modernism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823075755/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/Absurd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche
Is Nietzsche really part of modernism? He is quoted as major force behind post-modernism. "Heidegger shares an affinity with the late Romantic philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, another principal forerunner of post-structuralist and postmodernist thought." Good read on why he is postmodern https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/Sourcerery (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway
Even with suggestions that this is US/Europe centric, omitting Hemingway from literary modernism is pretty glaring. Call him "late modern" if necessary, but include him we must. All of his most important work was published after the Great War that demolished so much, including many people's faith in institutions, idealism, and ideas of right and wrong, etc, etc. He rolled with Gertrude Stein and all the others in post-war Paris. It doesn't get more modern than that. Friarbax (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)