I suspect only a handful of us will really think this is funny, but no one I’ve shared this with has “gotten it”, and I need some people here who I can giggle with.
Click refresh for another random computer-generated essay written in the bloated style of those academic francophonies. This thing cracks me up.
Nothing to add about the generator, but I’d just like to chime in and say that I despise the concept of postmodernism (or at least the defeatism that goes with it). It was probably fun and enlightening for the first few people who engaged in it, but now that it’s sort of a knee-jerk cultural more, it’s just sad. I, for one, refuse to engage in this regurgitative cynicism. Knowingly, at least…
Oddly enough, postmodernism brought new life and hope to comics. Astro City is as perfect a postmodernist critique of comic books as you really can hope to find.
I do transcription work for a certain university, and although I’m doing interviews rather than essays, I had pretty much the same thought. I reckon I could hand them back something like this, and they wouldn’t even notice.
IANAP but I thought postmodernism was about works of art that knowingly made references to its own genre or, in some cases, to its own existence. And I thought it was deconstruction that said works of art should be judged by the random thoughts passing through the head of the person who is viewing them rather than the actual content in the works themselves. (And if that’s not what others mean by deconstruction - well, that’s what it symbolizes to me so don’t go imposing your values above my own.)
Sort of. That’s a special category of post-modernism specially reserved for art. The rest of academia has adopted the post-modernism label and used it to describe silly theories about religion, discourse, knowledge, literature, and sociology. Foucault and Lacan seem to be the two big names for post-modernism, but expect a generous sprinkling of Marxist economic and sexual theory and general unadulturated bullshit.
See Alan Sokal’s paper “Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, a hoax paper which argued that gravity is a social construct but was published anyway in the liberal journal “Social Text” because it sounded complicated, flattered the preconceptions of the editors, and gave credence to their weird world views because “wow! a real life physicist (that’s real science!) agrees with us!”
Wonderful! Thanks for posting this…in between fits of laughter, I passed it on to friends who are still in the literary academic world, who still have to take this kind of bs seriously.
Don’t we have a poster whose style resembles this? I don’t spend much time in GD, so I can’t remember who it is, but I would swear I’ve seen a post or two like this.