[Okai]

Some people have said that these books are postmodern. What elements make these books postmodern? Maybe my questions isn't the right way to ask it. I'm know that defining what postmordernism is like trying to catch a slimy eel barehanded by night. Maybe this isn't a valid discussion to have unless I can define it, for the sake of discussion, does anyone have anything to say upon the matter. Also, I've read somewhere that in fact it's not postmodern though poststrucalism. No spoilers please.

This post has been edited by Okai: 28 April 2014 - 02:26 PM

[Zerv]

It's indeed a tricky term to define, though Merriam-Webster has this to say:

1: of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>

2a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)

b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>

The bolded parts could be said to be relevant to MBotF. While I'm far from an expert when it comes to this sort of thing, I'm under the impression that perhaps the one single thing that contributes the most towards Erikson's work being defined as postmodernist is his approach to narrative (unreliable narrators, commentary on the very act of storytelling (with varying degrees of subtlely) etc).

As for the postmodernism VS poststructuralism thing, I believe Erikson has stated that some critic has expressed the opinion you refered to at the end of your post, though Steven considers MBotF to be postmodern.

This post has been edited by Zerv: 28 April 2014 - 08:10 AM

[Khazduk]

MBotF = a stinging blow to the grand narratives.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Metanarrative

Although, the postmodernists are metanarrators too of course.