postmodernism and brazilian fiction of the eighties

Latin American Literary Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Literary Review.

http://www.jstor.org

Postmodernism and Brazilian Fiction of the Eighties Author(s): Adolfo Marin-Minguillon Source: Latin American Literary Review, Vol. 18, No. 35 (Jan. - Jun., 1990), pp. 18-31Published by: Latin American Literary ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119537Accessed: 10-08-2015 19:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 140.254.87.149 on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 19:23:49 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lalr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119537

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



POSTMODERNISM AND BRAZILIAN FICTION

OF THE EIGHTIES

ADOLFO MARIN-MINGUILLON

A new specter is haunting the world: the specter of post modernism. In the fields of society, philosophy and the arts, a great deal of polemicizing is being produced in order to characterize this

phenomenon. The prefix "post", added to the term "modern", sug

gests the birth of a new historical period. There must have been, then, some kind of rupture that marks the end of an era (modernity) and the beginning of the new times (postmodernity). The dis

agreement starts here. It's about this idea of rupture (or non-rupture) that the different positions taken on the problem gravitate.

In these pages I present a brief discussion and critique of the most important theoretical elaborations on the issue of postmod ernism. All further considerations of the problem touches on them

inescapably. So does the treatment of postmodernism with which the Brazilian critic Jos? Miguel Wisnik characterizes the popular culture

productions in his country, and which I use as a cultural and social

contextualization of the kind of literature with which this paper is concerned. Then I side with Matei Calinescu in the discussion of

literary postmodernism in order to arrive at general characterization

which, as a working hypothesis, I apply to two novels of highly artistic achievement in the Brazilian fiction of the eighties: O Tetraneto del-Rei [The Great-Great-Great-Grandson of the King], by Haroldo Maranh?o and Em Liberdade [Free] by Silviano Santiago.

For Jean Baudrillard, perhaps the first theorist of the post modern society, the rupture is well assumed. If modernity meant an

"explosion" (mechanization, technology, market economy, etc.),

postmodernity is characterized by an "implosion" ("de-differen

tiation") that brings about the end of firmly established categories such as the Real, Meaning, History, Revolution and the Social. The factor that dominates the social order now is not production, as

during modernity, but "re-production"?reproduction of models

through simulations and simulacra. A series of models promoted from the media (from health manuals to religious practices and

political attitudes) precede reality, reproduce it, and end up con

stituting the society as a "hyperreality" (that which is already reproduced). The Real, thus, has come to an end (Simulations 146).

Traditional theories of conflict and social change have become obsolete. Now, in an era of hyperconformity, the masses "only want

some sign, they idolize any content so long as it resolves itself into a



Postmodernism and Brazilian Fiction of the Eighties 19

spectacular sequence" (In the Shadow 10). This supposes the liquidation of Revolution and of the Social itself.

In modernity, the acquisition of Meaning implied the discovery of the hidden dimension behind the appearances (i.e., Marx's and Freud's "hermeneutics of suspicion"). The postmodern world, on the

contrary, consists of a proliferation of forms, signs, bombarding of information and media (In the Shadow 25-26, passim). Everything is explicit, transparent, visible, "ob-scene", and present: end of

Meaning and of History. The rupture, for Baudrillard, would consist in the shift from the modern "mode of production" to the postmodern "mode of disappearance." The French theorist seems to feel totally at ease in the new condition, as he does not propose a critical search of what has been lost, but, rather, accepts what is left: "All that remains is to play with the pieces....That is post-modern" ("On

Nihilism" 38). In the domain of philosophy and knowledge, another French

thinker, Jean Fran?ois Lyotard, advocates a historical rupture that

opens the door to the "postmodern condition." For him, the great main value of the conscience of the new epoch would be the plu ralistic fragmentation of knowledge. The master narratives (grand r?cits) of the past?e.g., Hegelianism, Marxism, Liberalism, etc.,? that have legitimized modern knowledge, have now lost their credibility (37). The postmodern condition rejects any totalizing theory, and embraces the "language game" principle as an epistemo logical approach within each of the spheres of knowledge. Science, history, philosophy, etc., constitute different cultural fragments where a series of "language moves", based on paralogy and dissent, are practised?argument/counter-argument, reply/counter-reply, etc.,

according to certain rules previously accepted and that can finally be canceled (60ff). Although deprived of the connotations of uni versality and Utopian emancipation with which knowledge, in

modernity, was invested, knowledge, in the post-modern condition, is still possible. For Baudrillard, in contrast, little or nothing can be

known in a world of simulations. The very subject of postmodernism may exemplify the

Lyotardian idea of "language games." So far, the different positions taken around the problem are nothing but "moves" in the debate.

Another participant in it, J?rgen Habermas, considers the issue more serious than a mere game. In total opposition to Lyotard, the

German philosopher asserts that the Utopian project of modernity has not failed; it is only unfinished. And it still has emancipatory potential: social rationality, justice, morality, etc., are universal truths that, since the Enlightment, are to become "the property of everyday praxis" (9). Habermas considers the postmodern ideology as an antimodern neoconservatism stemming from the French

poststructuralism (e. g., Foucault, Derrida) that has succumbed to



20 Latin American Literary Review

the present times without the necessary criticism that the situation demands (14-15).

The fourth participant in the debate, Fredric Jameson, tries to delineate a necessary epistemological foundation in order to propose a totalizing social theory that accounts for the new times. For

him, the concept of he postmodern periodizes the present moment, which is characterized by a new economic order (postindustrial capitalism, consumer society, mass media society, etc.) correlated

with new social and cultural forms ("Postmodernism" 112-3). Post modern culture comes to reinforce "the logic of consumer cap

italism" and possesses its own traits with respect to modernism:

implosion of boundaries, pastiche, dehistorization, fragmentation, etc. As a result, postmodern art has lost the subversiveness and the

strong subjectivity of high modernism; it has become conformist and mere combinatory play ("Postmodernism" 124-5).

For Andrew Britton, Baudrillard is nothing more than a

visionary and as such, he fails to develop "an intelligible strategy of cultural/political resistance" to the social conditions he describes. Visionaries "are unable to do so because the social conditions they describe are wrong" (17). Britton rejects Jameson's argument as

weak dilettantism (like postmodernism itself: everything goes) and proposes a much-needed critical analysis of capitalism in order to illuminate ways to achieve a more effective democracy.1 For

Britton, the concept of the postmodern, as it has been used so far, is no more than "conscious casuistry and charlatanism" (17).

A postmodern theory, for Douglas Kellner, still remains to be elaborated. Abstract and unilateral, Baudrillard's theory assumes an

absolute rupture for which there is no definition or justification. Moreover, Baudrillard tends to accept as finished states what appear

to be trends of the current social situation (Kellner 248). Lyotard finds himself in a contradictory position, for the very concept of the postmodern condition requires a grand r?cit that interprets it. In fact, the latter accepts theories of postindustrial society that intend to be

totalizing (Kellner 253-255). Habermas' attack on theories of post modernism and defense of modernity fails to answer the "strongest critiques" by the former (e. g., Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc.) upon the latter, that is, the Enlightenment and the "universalist heritage of philosophy and reason" (Kellner 265). It is Jameson who tries to most comprehensively characterize and

periodize the present condition, although he does not provide a detailed transition from earlier stages of capitalism to the current

late capitalism. Furthermore, his application of previous paradigms to contemporary society should be carefully revised in the light of actual cultural and social changes.2 In sum, although Kellner

recognizes the challenges of postmodern theories, he prefers to




speak "of a society in transition", and proposes a theory that concep tualizes the new social and cultural conditions as well as the links

with the past (267-8). The Brazilian critics Sergio Paulo Rouanet and Jos? Guilherme

Merquior take sides with Habermas in order to defend the eman

cipatory project of modernity. No rupture has occurred. Post-mod ernism is a false conscience, an illusion of rupture that does not

correspond to reality (as stated by Rouanet, who proposes the formation of a resistant neomodern conscience [51-53]), or it is an

epigonal, spurious derivation of modernity, whose great universal

values?Meaning, Truth, Reason?became, says Merquior in an

obvious attack on Lyotard, "mere ad hoc functions of language play that can be transformed ad infinitum" (Merquior 27).3

In my opinion, each of the four theoretical elaborations con

tains, however partially, symptomatic aspects of the present times.

Although the Baudrillardian mode of disappearance may be con sidered more science fiction than social theory, it is true that the current high technology functions as social control that can re

produce (and does, in fact) behavior patterns through media manipulation and modulation. But Baudrillard seems to legitimize

the system, as he does not penetrate beyond the appearances. He does not analyze the essence hidden behind the immense social screen of simulations. Jameson takes up that task, and looks at the

material conditions of society?political economy. Although he might be somewhat of a reductionist, he locates the postmodern society within a capitalist development, whereas Baudrillard's high tech society seems to have come out of the emptiness.

Jameson's global, totalizing interpretation of the new period contradicts Lyotard's thesis. But the Lyotardian pluralism favors a

proliferation of voices that act as a defense against the monopoly of discourse exercised by the political or cultural power (white, male, eurocentric). Therefore, the emergence of the discourse of "others"

(female, black, third-world) is positive and questions postmodern nihilism ? la Baudrillard.4 Nevertheless, that is not incompatible with a grand theory of contemporary conditions.

The bottom line here is to determine whether all these charac teristics and features constitute a new epoch or simply reflect an intensification of previous factors already contained in modernity, such as consumerism, media manipulation, modulation, etc., that have now become dominant. I support the second option. Whether this intensification will lead to a rupture, or not, remains to be seen.

And undoubtedly, a global theory that examines and conceptualizes the nature of the phenomena at stake, in the most comprehensive and

dialectical way, is strongly needed. This will help to orient ourselves

(in a sense like Jameson's "cognitive mapping") in the maelstrom of the (post)modern world.5 It might reveal whether we are going




through the end of an era or just through any of the recurrent crises

of the system.

What has been said until now applies to highly industrialized societies. But, obviously, different manifestations of those tenden

cies can be traced in all countries that integrate the capitalist world. In the case of Brazil, Wisnik's paper about the presence of post

modernism in the popular culture of that Latin American country echoes Baudrillard, Lyotard, Habermas and Jameson.

The present moment of Brazil (after the dictatorship, the frus

trations of the right-wing campaign and the failure of the Cruzado Plan) characterizes itself by "an emptiness of hope that seems to

reduplicate...that black hole...that Baudrillard defines as the end of

the social" (Wisnik 1). The author of the paper points out ironically that "modernity was never completed, but it has already been

overcome" (3). After the failure of the avant-garde totalizing project in the

sixties (the Utopian emancipation project devised by the high culture and to be carried out through the space of mass culture), the

confrontation of Roberto Schwarz against Augusto and Haroldo

de Campos reflects, on a Brazilian level, the Habermas/Lyotard

polemics. Schwarz denounces complacency in a post-utopian present that celebrates a "pluralism of possible poetics" (position sustained

by Haroldo de Campos and supported by Augusto in his famous poem "P?s-tudo" [Post-everything]), because it has succumbed (in Jameson's terms) to the "cultural logic of late capitalism." This post

utopian poetry, for Schwarz, falls prey to consumerism and accepts its lack of historical perspective as a positive trait (Wisnik 5-6).

On an intellectual level, as we see, Brazil shows the symptoms that mark the cultural crisis of modernity in postindustrial societies.

On a socio-economic level, however, the country is still in a "sub

modern" phase in many aspects. But as a third-world country subject to the demands of multinational capitalism, Brazil contains a

powerful industry of simulacrum (that is, the most superficial and visible feature of postindustrial societies). The consumption of the new dissimulates the country's backwardness and, at the same time, simulates modernity. The result is a shocking social pastiche of

postmodern and pre-modern forms (Wisnik 8). The indicators of the postmodern proliferate abundantly in the

domain of mass culture?TV, film, video, music, etc. There has

been a generalized invasion of a pastiche-parody form in which

anything goes, and that swings from honest artistic intentions to mere commercialism. Therefore, Wisnik does not consider popular

postmodernism as totally spurious. For instance, the song-writer and

singer Caetano Veloso, who participated in the avant-gardist expe rience of the sixties (which also employed the mass media), draws a




rich gamut of parodie nuances from the art/commodity confluence.

He interprets the cultural relativism of Brazil through an interplay that includes popular culture (Afro-religions, carnival, etc), modern

culture (the critique of language in the song lyrics), and postmodern culture (entertainment and culture industry [Wisnik 15-16).

Brazilian postmodern journalism finds its best expression and definition in the Folha de S?o Paulo, the most influential newspaper in the country, which uses a pastiche of thought, music, gossip and

fashion. It practices, in a Baudrillardian sense, a discourse of ap

pearance without substance, in which everything is transparent, "obscene" and patent (Wisnik 18). This nihilistic, cynical and hardly constructive side of postmodernism acquires its most negative load

in the political field where the politics of the image starts to dominate the politics of the discourse. In 1984, an intelligent and articulated Henrique Cardoso lost the S?o Paulo municipal elections to J?nio Quadros's histrionic acting (Wisnik 19). The simulations

theory seems to be working well in this case, but it would not

explain the success of the Left in the November 1988 elections for

mayor in S?o Paulo City itself, and that is another reason to question the French theorist's nihilism. Wisnik does not let himself be carried away by postmodern nihilism. He does not lose sight of the actual

complexity of present reality. But he also foresees that, if it keeps

proliferating as it does now, the use of the concept of the post modern in terms of superficial appearance may end up hiding a

reality under a stereotype that legitimizes existence and art as mere

banality. The question, however, is to resist it, Wisnik seems to

say (20).

As far as aesthetics is concerned, Calinescu has given a most

comprehensive (and positive) view of the concept of postmodernism. For him, it is a face of modernity. It thus reveals similarities to modernism, "particularly in its opposition to the principle of author

ity" (312), and maintains relations with the other faces of modernity such as decadence (eclecticism, questioning of unity), kitsch (commercial and popular code) and avant-garde (use of collage and

montage [312]). For Calinescu, postmodernism is not a new reality that presupposes a previous rupture. Rather, it is "a perspective from

which one can ask certain questions about modernity and its several

incarnations" (279). Thus, the specific characteristic of this face of

modernity is its questioning nature: "among the faces of modernity, postmodernism is perhaps the most quizzical: self-skeptical yet curious, unbelieving yet searching, benevolent yet ironic" (279).

Conceived in this manner, postmodern art places itself far away from both Merquior's dismissal of it as epigonal and spurious and Jameson's characterization of it as commodified and conformist.




Calinescu, however, considers only a postmodern art of high quality and does not deal with more mediocre works.

In the case of Brazilian literature, whose modernism (equivalent to the European avant-garde) has had such a strong impact for sev

eral decades, Calinescu's position is extremely valid for The Great Great-Great-Grandson of the King and Free. Both works have

inescapable links with modernism. Grandson uses modernist tech

niques of subversion of models; Free is a text ? la Graciliano Ramos?an author who belongs to modernism's second generation? and both exhibit a questioning nature per se. Maranh?o's text

questions the relation between history and fiction; questions colonial

history and the authenticity of its chronicles. Silviano Santiago, among other things to be discussed below, uses a subtle simulacrum

technique that takes his work to the limit of biography, essay, and novel.

As mentioned, Calinescu does not pay attention to lower quality works. In Brazilian fiction, such novels as Amazona, by Sergio Sant'Anna, and High Art, by Rubem Fonseca, resort to a pastiche

recipe of plots, topics and narrative forms that sells well without any further artistic achievement. These novels would correspond to

Jameson's and Merquior's characterization of postmodern art. This

shows that in its contemporary literature also, Brazil reflects the

international polemics on the postmodern issue.

Focusing on the aesthetic sector that can be denominated as

high postmodernism?final object of this paper?it can be said, along with Calinescu, that postmodernism abandons modernist and

avant-garde innovative nature, opts for the logic of renovation, and enters "into a lively reconstructive dialogue with the old and the

past" (276). The avant-gardist experimentation reached a point

beyond which it was impossible to advance any further. The de struction of forms and contents of the aesthetic tradition led to the

white canvass, the white page, silence. The postmodern alternative

"consists of recognizing that the past, since it cannot be destroyed, because its destruction leads to silence, must be revisited: but with

irony, not innocently" (Eco 66-67). The rediscovery of the past is submitted to questioning through irony, parody and other devices.

This is immediately applicable to Grandson, which constitutes a

parody per excellence, and Free, whose questioning becomes a tex

tual reconstruction that carries a certain dose of perversion and

critique. The uses of parody, irony, satire, play, etc., in the recon

struction of the past, result in a double feature for literary texts:

complexity (because of the different levels of codification articulated

by the parodie game) and enjoyment. Such a codification has the

capacity to reach a wide spectrum of readers. This fact may turn the

postmodern work into a potential best seller. The most obvious




example is Eco's novel The Name of the Rose (Calinescu 284). Such a commercial success leads to the reexamination of the dichotomy "between works designed for popular consumption and avant garde

works (unpopular, experimental, provocative, etc.)," because one can find "elements of revolution and contestation in works that lend themselves to facile consumption and it [is] possible to realize that ...certain works, which seem provocative and still enrage the public,

do not really contest anything" (Eco 64). Although Maranh?o's Grandson is far from being a best-seller,

the book contains a plurality of coding that allows readers to enjoy the text from the most superficial level to the most sophisticated

parodie key. Santiago's Free, more successful market-wise, with three editions already in circulation, testifies to the compatibility of

good literature and commercial success. But when the market temp tation takes over the artistic intention, one shifts from one side of

postmodernism to the other. Complexity loses out to consumerism. This complexity, which draws a line between the two trends of

postmodern literature, is determined by a multi-codification based on

"allusion and allusive commentary, citation, playfully distorted or

invented reference, recasting, transposition, deliberate anachronism, the mixing of two or more historical or stylistic modes" (Calinescu 285). The postmodern aesthetics?versus avant-garde minimalism? thus can be described as "quotationist" or "citationist" (285). Grand son is a perfect example of such a quotationist text, and, although on a different level, Free is, as well. Postmodernist art and literature are, therefore, hybrid products, and boundaries blur among genres.

This leads to "indeterminacy" or "undecidability" of form and con

tent, achieved by, among other things, the "treatment on an equal footing of fact and fiction, reality and myth, truth and lying, original and imitation" (Calinescu 303).

Now I will apply this previous characterization of high literary postmodernism to the two Brazilian novels in order to determine to what extent they can be considered postmodernist works.

The Great-Great-Great-Grandson of the King revises the historical past of the colonization of Brazil by the Portuguese. To that effect, Maranh?o "re-writes" the chronicles of the conquest in order to parody (and subvert) the ideology of the discovery and conquest of the Brazilian territory. By ways of a "simulated" text (he

writes "as if", "in the guise of" another text, the chronicles), the author redefines the discourse of the colonial empire in order to

identify himself with the "other." The duality true/false of the dis course is contrasted by means of a structural element of the text: the letters that the protagonist (D. Jer?nimo d'Albuquerque) sends from

Brazil to his Lisbon lover. These letters re-write, for Europe, a

falsified version of the facts that took place in the New World. The




author's purpose is to playfully unravel the falsehood of the colonial

myth. Maranh?o still takes the parodie game higher as he establishes

ambiguity (undecidability) among the relation history/fiction/legend. Nevertheless, between the author's text and the "original" text (the

chronicles), a "difference" exists. Grandson, as a simulated text, does not efface the original but refers back to it; it communicates the

model and its alteration at the same time. The difference is the non

innocent parody, in Calinescu's sense.

Another parodie level is the text itself. The protagonist reads his own adventures in a text that never existed. Moreover, author

ship is questioned: who writes?

O Torto [D, Jer?nimo] was reading some pieces of paper, whose manuscript had been entrusted to an educated and

reliable chronicler, the chronicler of D. Jer?nimo de

Albuquerque! Will it be necessary to say to those who

inattentively deal with printed matters that the Torto was

reading a non-existent chronicler about non-occurred

facts.... (Maranh?o 31 )

Grandson also parodies other literary works. Maranh?o destroys the

romantic myth of indigenous life. The young Indian woman who

eventually marries D. Jer?nimo is far from being the pure heroine as idealized in Alencar's Iracema. The man-eating natives also parody the bon sauvage myth.

Switching to another postmodernist element, this book is a "ci tationist" text in a high degree. The "Author's Note" at the end of the

book reads: "In the text, I grafted verses and passages of Fr. Amador

Arrais, Vaz de Caminha, Cam?es, Bocage, Gregorio de Matos, Francisco de Mont'Alverne, Castelo Branco, Antero de Quental, E?a de Queir?z, Machado de Assis, Francisco Otaviano, Olavo Bilau, Fernando Pessoa, Guimaraes Rosa, Manuel Bandeira, Drummond de

Andrade, Cabrai de Melo Neto, Mario Faustino and L?do Ivo." This book thus becomes a gigantic system of literary referentiality, a text universe that raises the central question of postmodernism: "Can

literature be other than self-referential?" We arrive at the problem of

representation: "Can literature be said to be a 'representation of

reality' when reality itself turns out to be shot with fiction through and through?" (Calinescu 299)

Those questions emerged with the precursors of postmod ernism?writers such as Borges, Nabokov and Beckett. With their

respective poetics, they problematized representation and tran

scended reality as the great representational theme. For example, with his poetics of perplexity, Borges' world view appears "as a labyrinth of possibilities, parallel times, alternative past and




futures, all of which have equal claims to fictional representation" (Calinescu 300).

However, in Latin American countries, because of the need to

somehow represent the tough socio-political-economic situation, this

separation from reality is not generalized. Garc?a M?rquez, Vargas Llosa and Carlos Fuentes, for instance, have produced engag? literature to a certain degree. In Brazil, writers have not lost contact

with reality, either, whether the historical reality (Grandson), or the most immediate one (Free).

Nevertheless, Maranh?o still makes valid the question about what represents the good literature of postmodernism. In his text

universe, language is another protagonist. And the whole book has a

totalizing referent: the chronicles. But, on the other hand, the author takes all of the parts up to the level of critical parody of a historical

process in order to reinforce national identity?a frequent theme

since Brazilian modernism.

Maranh?o has been able to combine perfectly the enjoyment of his text with the complexity of multicodification as articulated in his book: the protagonist's adventures, treated with an excellent sense of

humor; the adventure of language (i. e., the feat of the prose, juxta position of various speeches in different levels of discourse, and the colonial language that subverts the model); the different levels of

parody; the intertextual mosaic, etc.

Finally, modernism still lingers on in Grandson. Besides the practice of subversion techniques already mentioned, the author's use of language retains a modernist aftertaste. He experiments with

words, plays with their sounds, invents new words, uses rare, anachronistic ones. The context, however, justifies it. The con frontation colonized/colonizer is utilized to parody the formal rules of Portuguese grammar, and he incorporates indigenous expressions for the sound's sake.

If Maranh?o spreads differentiation keys all along his text, Silviano Santiago, on the contrary, takes the poetics of textual

undecidability to such a degree that only a deep hermeneutical exercise can differentiate the "original"?that does not exist?from the copy. The author's game consists in the reproduction of some "lost" manuscripts of a real writer?Graciliano Ramos. Silviano's function thus is that of the editor who prepares texts to be sent to

print. This manuscript contains an autobiographic fragment?it belongs in the tradition of memorialism that has been so frequently practiced in Brazilian literature. Santiago prepares a credible hy pothesis as his literary alibi: Em Liberdade [Free] could not co-exist with Memorias do Car cere [Memoirs from Jail]?Ramos' authentic text?because of the obvious intrinsic relationship between both

works. The ambiguous status of Free, therefore, starts form the very




outset as a false-authentic text subject to the ever-present refer

entiality of Ramos' Memorias.

Given this framework, Santiago's proposal consists in dispens

ing with himself in order to take the position of the "other", and, as a result, to become the simulacrum of that other. And as such a

simulacrum, the entire Free is a huge citation. This game of textual

undecidability runs parallel with the ind?termination of genres. In this sense, there has been a postmodern implosion of boundaries.

Santiago's book mixes biography (or pseudo-auto-biography), essay (as a study about an author and his relation with society) and novel (the book appears as fiction). In the sense that it is a biography, the book thoroughly (and, at times, perversely) presents Ramos, including the concept that he had about himself, as well as his most trivial thoughts. Simultaneously, the book develops through Ramos an essay-like discourse about the writer's socio-political moment

(the dictatorship in the thirties) and the commitment of intellectuals. In this sense, the book unfolds the individual/society relationship pointed out by Theodor W. Adorno in the quote that opens the nar rative (Santiago 19).

Santiago's approach to the past is clearly not neutral or inno cent. His simulacrum is not an end in itself, but an intelligent device in order to subtly criticize a status quo that goes beyond the thirties.

Santiago's purpose could be contained in this paragraph:

To present...the persistence of authoritarian regimes in

Brazil. The uncomfortable situation of the intellectuals whenever they publicly manifest their desire for a less un

just society. (205)

Santiago makes good use of Ramos' circumstance as a writer; the

former revises the writing/reading relations in society and redefines them in function of a resistance and contestation to the system:

The newspaper reader does not want to make any effort when reading....This reader has a fascist vision of liter

ature.

Fascism is not only a strong and authoritarian, usually militaristic, government which reproduces the economic forces of the ruling class....Man lets himself be invaded by behavior models that do not represent his energy and transform him into a uniformed being....

An authentic reading is a struggle between subjectivities ....The fictional conflict is...a copy of the reading conflict.

Fiction can exist only when there is conflict....To find in fiction what one expected to find...is the fascist way. (117)




One can see here some kind of critique of the postmodern

society, as described by Baudrillard. Human emancipation, for San

tiago, passes through critical reading. Writers, as text producers, have the responsibility to contribute to that emancipatory task:

Novel writers occupy, therefore, a most difficult position within society....Any time that they see that a norm is

being generated and followed by a considerable number of citizens, it is then that they come to the fore, carrying their critical weapons! (117)

And as a justification of his own project, Santiago asserts: "This

critique [in fiction] does not appear in an explicit way. It would be

preferable, then, to write an essay" (117).

Santiago mixes essay and fiction to contribute with his book to the writer's social commitment. This book is a clear example of what

Hal Foster refers to as "a postmodernism of resistance" (xii). Free

questions cultural codes, as does grandson. Other Brazilian post modern novels?like the already mentioned Amazona and High Art

?pursue the exploitation of those codes.

Calinescu's positive position concerning postmodernism does not impede our seeing the other side of it as denounced by Jameson,

Merquior, and others. But the latters' refusal to recognize the exis tence of a high postmodernism takes them to adopt exceedingly pessimistic and quasi-apocalyptic attitudes. A great deal of reflection is still necessary in order to delve into the authentic nature of this new specter that is haunting the world. Meanwhile, let the examples of The Great-Great-Great-Grandson of the King and Free, among others, be a proof that high postmodernism exists?and still retains the substance that Fine Arts always has had.

University of Texas at Austin

NOTES

i Britton finds it hard to believe that the author of such works as The

Prison-House of Language "could ever have written a piece as muddled, as

inconsequential, as eclectic and as question-begging as that lengthy dis

cussion on 'the cultural logic of late capitalism' "

(11). In his article, Jameson

draws on Mandel's Late Capitalism and Adorno's "culture industry" in The

Dialectic of Enlightenment. Within this theoretical framework, "Mr. Jameson

spares us Nietzsche, but he throws in everything else" (Britton 11). Jameson

includes, among others, Sontag, Burke, Kant, Freud, Williams, Lacan, Mann, Sartre, and "then dole out the resulting cognitive soup as a theory"

(Britton 11). Against this postmodern "epidemic of discursive indigestion," Britton remains faithful to Marxism as the best method "for analysing




capitalist society in concrete detail and (therefore) for devising practical ways to eliminate the structural impediments to an authentic democracy which

capitalism embodies" (17). 2 Whereas Jameson wants to hold onto fundamental distinctions

between social classes, base/superstructure, Left/Right, etc., Kellner prefers to "analyze postmodernism in terms of a theory of techno-capitalism that

would present the current social order in the capitalist countries as synthesis of new technologies and capitalism that is characterized by new technical, social and cultural forms combining with capitalist relations of productions to create the social matrix of our times. This move points to continuities with

the social theories of the past (i. e., Marxism) and the need to revive, update,

expand and develop previous theories in the light of contemporary con

ditions" (267). 3 All translations from Portuguese texts are mine. 4 For a postmodernism of resistance that embraces the discourse of

others from the Lyotardian fragmentation, see Owens. 5 Such cognitive mapping involves the task of individuals, artists and

theorists in providing orientation and a theoretical model of how society is

structured. See Jameson's "Cognitive Mapping."

WORKS CITED

Baudrillard, Jean. In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. Trans. Paul Foss et al. New York: Semiotext(e), 1983.

-Simulations. Trans. Paul Foss et al. New York: Semiotext(e), 1983. -"On Nihilism." On the Beach. 6 (1984): 38-9.

Britton, Andrew. "The Myth of Postmodernism: The Bourgeois Intelligence in the Age of Reagan." CineAction Summer 1988: 3-17.

Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1987.

Eco, Umberto. Postscript to "The Name of the Rose". Trans. William

Weaver. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1984.

Fonseca, Rubem. High Art. Trans. Allan Watson. New York: Harper &

Row, 1986.

Foster, Hal, ed. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays in Postmodern Culture. Port

Townsend: Bay Press, 1983.

-"Postmodernism: A Preface." Ed. Foster, ix-xvi.

Habermas, J?rgen. "Modernity?An Incomplete Project." Ed. Foster. 3-15.

Jameson, Fredric. "Postmodernism and Consumer Society." Ed. Foster.

111-125.

-"Cognitive Mapping." Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture.

eds. Cary Nelson and Laurence Grossberg. Urbana and Chicago:

University of Illinois Press, 1988.

Kellner, Douglas. "Postmodernism as Social Theory." Theory, Culture and

Society 2-3 (1988): 39-269.




Lyotard, Jean Fran?ois. The Postmodern Condition: Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Massumi. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press 1984.

Maranh?o, Haroldo. O Tetraneto del-Rei. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1982.

Merquior, Jos? Guilherme. "Aranha e abelha: para urna cr?tica da ideologia

pos-moderna." Revista do Brasil 5 (1986): 22-27.

Owens, Craig. "The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism."

Ed. Foster. 57-82.

Rouanet, Sergio Paulo. "A verdade e a ilus?o do pos-moderno." Revista do

Brasil 5 (1986): 28-53.

Sant'Anna, Sergio. Amazona. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1986.

Santiago, Silviano. Em Liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1981.

Wisnik, Jos? Miguel. "A interpreta??o do pos-modernismo na est?tica das

produ??es populares brasileiras (TV, mass media, filme, m?sica pop ular)."

[An Interpretation of Postmodernism in the Aesthetics of Brazilian

Popular Productions (TV, Mass Media, Film, Popular Culture)]. Un

published paper, 1988.



postmodernism and brazilian fiction of the eighties

Documents

brazilian fiction

utcyour use

jstor terms

new specter

jstor archive

kind of rupture

terms conditions of

social order