 In this video, I'd like to discuss postmodern criticism and postmodern critique of literature and media. Before we get into the details, I want to preface this by saying that postmodern criticism can be really involved. Postmodern theory is really involved. There's a lot of depth. There's a lot of different ways of approaching it and different ways of doing it. I want to preface this video by saying we're just going to cover the most basic elements of postmodern criticism. There's a lot more to dig into here and a lot of materials that you can explore. I just want to give you the brief 1,000-foot overview of postmodern criticism so that we can have a foundation to start from here. With that in mind, postmodern criticism, as you might guess, is the preface post means after. Postmodern criticism comes after what was known as modern criticism. What more do you need to know? Well, we need to know what modern criticism is and we'll get to that and then we need to know how that impacts postmodern criticism. So postmodern criticism examines artifacts through a framework that uses something that stipulates that there are essentially no singular truths or narratives. There's no one right way to do things. There's no one right way to look at something or to do something or no right format for putting together literature or music or other artifacts or other pieces of art. There's just chaos. There's no one way to do things. This is indirect contrast to modern criticism, which says that there's a central narrative, that everything is feeding into this one idea. Whatever that idea is, that America is number one, that love is good and conquers all, that the good guys win and bad guys lose, those are central narratives that we oftentimes feed into with these sub-narratives. So every sub-narrative, every piece of work, every artifact is going to feed into that and somehow feed into that central narrative. So when you read a book that's a piece of modern literature, it's going to somehow feed into that central narrative. When you hear a song, it's going to conform to the ideals of what that music industry says it should be at that time and feed into that central narrative and the topics will and the structure of the songs will and the movies are the same way. So everything about it feeds into this central narrative. Well, postmodern criticism says that there is no central narrative because there is no singular truth. There is no one right thing. There's no one way to do things. So all these sub-narratives in postmodern criticism are just going wherever they want. There's no central narrative to feed into. So it's just chaos in that regard. So each sub-narrative can really explore and do whatever it wants. So we see this, one way we can look at this is through music. Music industry through the years, music industry now. So when you think about the early Beatles music, now I'm talking about, I'm not talking about Robert Scholl, I'm not talking about Sergeant Pepper, I'm not talking about early Beatles music. I'm talking about, I want to hold your hand and love, love me do, right? That music conforms to the central narrative in a variety of ways, right? It conforms to that central narrative in that the topics of that song are appropriate. It's, you know, it's about, it's about an innocent love. It's about holding hands. It's about this kind of stuff. So the content is there. And then just like most music of that time, the format is the same. It's verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, outro, right? End of song. That's how most songs were structured back then. If you go back unless they all have the similar format because that's, and they were all feeding into the central narrative, right? Because they were pieces of modern work, modern works of art at that time, right? But post-modern, oh, and we can see this in contemporary days, still this happens today. If you look at the music of Taylor Swift, there's not much, whether you're a fan or not, I don't know, but there's not much, there's not much ingenuity. There's not a lot. It's verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, out, you know, and it's pretty much the same four chords and the same type of, you know, the same type of topics a lot of times. And, you know, even if it's not about, you know, love conquers all, now it's about heartbreak and that kind of fits into the modern mode as well. But Taylor Swift very much follows that, what we would call the modern theory approach of creating music. It's very kind of formulaic and falls into that pattern. But back in the 70s, and you had, especially in what we would call prog rock or progressive rock, you had bands that came out and said, you know, we don't like that format. We don't want to do that. We don't want to have that verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus, out, and we don't want to be stuck to a particular time signature the whole time. So he had bands like Yes and Early Genesis and one of my favorite bands of all time, Rush, that played around with time signatures and mixing different time signatures within the same song. Writing songs about, you know, kind of a dystopian future or about just random stuff that wasn't like the norm for pop music. It wasn't, you know, again, everybody loved each other and everybody and leveled went out and stuff like that. It was about different things, you know, so, so it was very, very different in that regard as well. So, so the modern day equivalent to that in some ways would be tool, for example, if you're into that kind of music tools with the, again, mixture of sound of time signatures, which is unusual. Don't follow the first chorus, first chorus, bridge chorus, out of format all the time or a lot of times. So I'm just doing their own thing. They're not, they're not trying to fit into that particular format. So they're, they're, they're out there on their own. They're, they're very much a postmodern artist tool is. So with that, I mean, that just gives you sort of an idea of what we mean by groups not falling in or pieces of art or artifacts not falling into the standard format of what we think of as, as appropriate or modern or fitting into that central, central narrative, the central truth. So again, the major premises, the first major premises of postmodern criticism is that there is no singular truth. There's no one right thing. There's no one wrong thing. There's no correct way to do things. There's no one theme that we ought to be following in, following into and trying to promote. There's no singular truth. There's, there's just everybody doing what they do and what they want to do. And that's how not only people are producing these artifacts, but that's how people are viewing them as well. That they're viewing them through their own lens, that they're not viewing them through this singular, you know, filter or frame of reference that would lead to that central narrative, that there is no singular truth. And they say, they would say that this really is founded in. I mean, if you want, if you want a great example of this, they would say, look at the language. I mean, our language isn't even singular in what it means. And now it's constructed. You could, they'd say, you can look at a very simple sentence like time flies like an arrow, right? And that even, that doesn't mean one thing. That can mean several things. So if we look at it like, like time is the, is the noun or the object in this, in the situation, time flies like an arrow. Meaning time passes quickly, right? It flies through there. It moves so quickly. Time flies like an arrow. But we can look at that same sentence in a slightly different structure. And we could say, time flies like an arrow. And by that, we could mean, let's get some flies, let's get some flies and we'll have them do, you know, elapses or whatever. We'll train them to do racing, but we'll time them from this area to this area and we'll use a stopwatch and we'll time them. Right. And we'll see if we can time those flies as we can an arrow. But even that's not, I mean, so we've got two different, two different interpretations of that same sentence, but even then we can have an additional one. Time flies like an arrow. In other words, these time flies, right, these actual flies that are, that are somehow connected to time, time flies. In other words, singularly, time flies, they like an arrow. Meaning that they like arrows or they could like a particular arrow or whatever, but they have an affection or affinity for arrows or this particular arrow. These time flies really appreciate and enjoy this particular arrow. So postmodern people look at this and say, look, we can't even trust our language. We can't even have a singular definition of a simple sentence like this. How could we possibly have a single narrative that runs through everything and expect all this art to really flow into it? And it just doesn't make any sense. They would say, they would say that's just not realistic, right? So, so that's where we get postmodernism, that there is no singular truth, right? Because of all this, they would say creators and evaluators are like share in the co-creation of meaning. It's not just somebody putting something out there and then you have this absolute understanding of it that everybody who sees it comes to the same conclusion. They would say that these creators and evaluators are sharing co-creation of meaning that the evaluators, whoever's looking at and taking in that artifact shares in the creation of meaning and what it means because they're putting their own interpretation, their own spin on it. And so you have two people that are involved or at least two people that are involved in the creation of meaning through this particular artifact, right? Because you have both the creator and the evaluator looking at it. We also need to consider through the in the postmodern lens that people or groups in power construct these narratives artificially that sometimes because I mean, there's no singular truth, postmodern people would say there's no singular truth, there's no singular central narrative, right? But that doesn't mean people don't try to create them in order to get people to look at things in a particular way, get people to respond to things in a particular way and so forth, right? And so that these people or these groups could be a single person, could be a group, they construct these narratives, they construct these narratives, they construct America first, they construct love conquers all, they construct good guys, bad guys, right? Because they want people to move into this particular narrative, they want people to feed into that. So that these people in or groups have power, they construct these narratives artificially so that there's no singular truth, there's no singular central narrative in postmodern theory, but that doesn't mean people don't try to create them in order to kind of funnel people into it. Finally, the role of narrative and author are fundamentally altered in postmodern theory, postmodern criticism, because there's that co-creation of meaning, so there's no just like singular narrative soak it all in, there's no, you know, author rules all, author creates the world, author does this because you have that co-creation of meaning between the creator and the evaluator. So the role of those things, which have, you know, in the modern perspective are so important, the narrative in the author are so important in those, in the modern perspective, but in the postmodern perspective of criticism, they're really not the same role. So what are some common questions we need to ask when we're engaging in postmodern criticism of literature or media? So one of the first ones is how is language thrown into what we call free play or questioned in the work? I showed you an example of free play of language with that time flies like an arrow, that we can interpret language differently, we can use language differently, so how does language or how did these representative symbols, how are they thrown into that free play or questioned in the work? What kind of questions can they lead to about how things are organized and what they mean by those words? What we actually mean? What's the meaning of those words? How is that thrown into free play in this work? How does the work undermine or contradict generally accepted truths? So again, modern critique, modern criticism says that these are the truths, these are things we should believe and even if those aren't the things that we have people in groups that are artificially creating those, so how does this work put that into question? How does this work go against what people would normally think of as appropriate and effective in this type of work? How does the author or character omit, change or reconstruct memory or identity? So how are they working outside of what we would consider the norm for those things, for memory and identity? How are they altering those things and using them to the way they want and kind of shaping it in that regard? How does a work fulfill or move outside the established conventions of its genre? So again, there's these rules in modern literature, modern media that say this is how you're supposed to do things. This is how music is supposed to be made. It's verse course, first course, bridge course, out. And so how does this music or television show or movie work outside of the conventions? Another great example of this type of thing would be the work of the film work of Quentin Tarantino, especially early on who, starting with Pulp Fiction, even really starting with Reservoir Dogs and then Pulp Fiction was where it really blew up that just defied what was supposed to happen in movies or what was supposed to be appropriate. Another example from that era, the nineties were where the film really started, where film really started in post modern work really in a broader way. Another example, that would be the movies of Kevin Smith, if you're familiar with any of those clerks. A little bit more rats, but clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma, those are movies that really go outside of the norm. They were considered very off the beaten path because they didn't follow the strictures of storytelling. They didn't follow the narratives and then follow, you know, the guy always gets the girl in the end and follow everything always works out. In fact, a lot of times it did not work out effectively in his movies, but then toward realism. And so how did that work? How does that work in general, work outside of the established conventions of its genre, what the expectations are there? In addition, we can ask how does the work deal with the separation or lack thereof between the writer, work and the reader. So especially in modern times of digital media, we can get into what is the separation between this work, is there any separation between this work? Because a lot of times now we can be almost interactive with the artifact and really that engages the person in a different way. The viewer and the person who's evaluating it, it engages them in a totally different way and engaging in different senses and things. So how does that deal with that separation or lack thereof? What ideology does the artifact seem to promote? Again, you're not stuck to you know, we've got to write something or produce something that fits into this mold. Now we can have it fit into whatever mold we want. So what ideology are they promoting there? There was some discussion around the Dark Knight movies. The Dark Knight, I think it was. Whether there was a statement on the government intrusion and government, you know, the Patriot Act and things and the government being able to access digital things. And is that fair? Is that just? Is that free for people? Is that the cost of safety in a free society or not? So I mean there's some questions about what is this promoting? Is this just an action movie? Or is this promoting a particular ideology, a particular perspective on that type of viewpoint? So what's the ideology that it seems to be promoting? What is left out of the artifact that might have included might undermine the goal to work? So what did they intentionally leave out? Because maybe didn't fit into what they were trying to do. Didn't fit into their particular narrative, those types of things. And if we change the point of view of the artifact, say from one character to another or multiple characters, how would the story change? How would that change perspective? How would that change the outcome? How would that again go against or combat the typical narrative that we would find in this type of genre and this type of work? So real quickly, I just want to run through one one example where I had to pick the television show for this time. And so again, we're not going to examine any particular episode or anything. We're just going to generally look at the show and and try and apply some of these questions. It's very, again, a mile wide and an inch deep. We're not going to get really deep into these things. So but I chose one that I think a lot of people will have seen and be familiar with. And if not, then you've probably heard about it enough to know a little bit about it. But I picked the office. So we're going to examine the office just a little bit here in terms of postmodern criticism, we're going to apply some of the framework of postmodern criticism over the office in general. So how's language thrown into free play or question in the work? I mean, there's a lot of ways that these language in the office, a lot of, you know, kind of tongue in cheek references, things like that's what she said, and those types of things. But but also just the way that they use office language or, you know, kind of business lingo to to let you know that, A, this is an office, but B, they're not taking it too seriously that they're kind of making fun of those types of things. And and so there's there's some different uses of language in that way and just different some double entendres and some different ways that they use language that probably wouldn't be necessarily true in most sitcoms or most office places. How does this work undermine or contradict generally accepted truths? Well, when against convention, first of all, and that they kind of what they call broke the fourth wall, they talked directly to the audience as always, although they did that through this documentary style, not like some shows where the characters will have an aside with the camera and literally just talk to the audience. This was more of a documentary style where they would be able to talk to the audience directly to the camera because they were aware of the cameras. So that was the idea that they were aware of the cameras. And that was very different from for that genre. It also undermines some ideas about what it means to work in an office. I mean, it's obviously not a realistic portrayal in some ways of what would happen but in an office. So anyway, it contradicts a lot of things. How does the author or character omit change or reconstruct memory and identity? Well, I mean, you see some of the characters just change over time and not that people don't change over time, but they make different decisions with these characters based on who's going to be here longer and who's not. And they give them different story arcs. And so you may just have like Michael Scott, the main guy becomes more sympathetic over the course of the show, becomes less of kind of this buffoon and becomes more empathetic character that you're going to like. And so they just kind of forget the fact in some ways that he's this buffoonish kind of guy and because they want to change the direction of the character. So you have some things like that that happen. So the same thing with the white, they kind of give it white a heart in a sense and Angela heart in a sense because they wanted to take those characters in different directions. So you just kind of forgot some stuff and left some stuff, you know, left it in the past and moved on with where they wanted to take the characters. How does work fulfill or move outside of the established conventions of a genre? Well, again, a lot of ways that was the documentary style. So that was the one way that the things that that was different. So the but it was funny and fulfilled the work fulfilled the conventions of genre in that it was funny. They had different story arcs and kind of followed the same kind of format that a sitcom would follow. But they did so in a very different way with the filming and had different aspects of filming and different things that they did differently there. How does the work deal with the separation or lack there between the writer, the work and the reader? You know, I don't know. And this one, they in the show there wasn't as much separation. They were more in tune, I think, than a lot of shows with what was going on, what their audience was thinking. Obviously, the audience have been very passionate about this, even after the show's been off the air. So there's not a great deal of separation. So there's really a lack of separation, I would say in this work. What ideology does the artifact seem to promote? You know, this is one that's kind of hard to certainly not how to be good at your job. But I think the ideology here is how to find the good in everything and everyone in different situations, right? That in the end, all these people came to care for one another and in different ways. And so that the people you work with are oftentimes your sort of second family. So it kind of falls into that ideology, in a sense. What's left out of the artifact that have included might undermine the goal of the work? Well, I mean, a realistic perspective of an office. For one thing, this place would have been out of business after season one, if they conducted themselves the way that they do in the show. So they left, they left that out because it would undermine the goal. So it's one of those things you just have to accept it or not. And I remember talking years ago with a friend about, you know, James Bond and those kind of movies. And they were like, I don't like it because he just tells all these things. It's not real. I said, yes, not real. That's not the point. It's not supposed to be real. It's supposed to be fun. And so you set aside the conventions for reality for that type of show. And I think you did the same thing for the office. You set aside the fact that they would have been, you know, bankrupted and that company never would have survived in that office, never would have survived and those people would not have been promoted and advanced and kept on and things like that. You set that aside because you understand it's fiction and you understand it's somewhat absurd. And so you, you allow for that and you let that go. We changed the point of view of the artifact, say from one character to another or multiple characters. How would the story change? I think they did that in some ways in the show, to be honest, they changed the, you know, initial really at its heart. This is a love story between about Jim and Pam. Just the whole show is a love story about Jim and Pam. All the others are just kind of side characters, but they had the time and the opportunity and the frankly, the actors and the stories to work with that, that they could take this in different directions. You saw much more focus on Michael Scott, the show became centered around him. Then when he left the show, when Steve Carell left left the show, you had this focus on on some other characters, on Dwight, on Andy, on Jim and Pam still, but really these floating characters around and determining who had the more compelling storyline at that moment. So it did change, and it did change the tone of the show throughout the show. The idea that when the focus was on Michael Scott, it was really kind of fun and absurd and how wacky can it get. And then the show, the tone would change when the focus was on Jim and Pam to more of a relationship type drama. You know, kind of first of a will they won't they and then later on a how will they and so forth. So so it did take on multiple perspectives, I think, and it did change the story somewhat when they did so. OK, not necessarily a great example, but I want to give you some idea of what we're looking at there with postmodern again. This one's this one's thick. This one's kind of deep. It's kind of thick and hard to get through in some ways. But but you can do it. You can you can understand things from this perspective by thinking about, OK, who not only who benefits from this, but what's there? What's their purpose here? What's what's the end goal for this person? What's the end goal for this situation? What are they trying to accomplish? And and just really thinking critically about that and then thinking about what is it they're promoting within? How does that contradict the the the norm, so to speak, the central narrative that the other people are putting out? So give some thought to that as you move through the idea of postmodern criticism here. As always, if you have any questions, feel free to email me. I'm happy to respond to emails and discuss things that way. So don't hesitate to email me. In the meantime, get out there and start looking at things through that postmodern lens.