OK, this has been bothering me for a little while now and if someone could help clear this up for me I would appreciate it.
In terms of labeling literature, are there any good reasons for calling any given period or school of literature "modernism"? Modern means, like, up-to-date, ya know? Isn't that a moving target instead of a given time period?
If you stick the years 1880 to 1950 with the "modern" label for all time, then obviously you're stuck with "postmodern" for what comes next. And then after that you're just stuck. Maybe that's the problem with literature these days? It's so non-descript.
Why not choose a descriptive, if slightly more humble name? There
are boatloads to choose from.
Looking at previous World Lit, you've got periods like the Enlightenment -- something like that would be good. How about, "the disillusionment" instead of modernism? And then, instead of "postmodernism", "The Experimentation"
which can still be going on....
I know it doesn't matter much what labels you paste on something. To quote the standard cliche of our time, "it is what it is". But I've been reading a lot of Pynchon lately and trying to find out all I can about the guy, and everywhere I look I get this "post-modern" shit slung back at me, as he is the quintessential post-modern author in the eyes of many. Like what the hell does that even mean?
I'm sure this is all available in some text book somewhere, but I'm 9 years removed from school.