The Crisis of Literature in The Netherlands: Questions of Value, Use, Autonomy, and Engagement

(1)

The Crisis of Literature in The Netherlands

Questions of Value, Use, Autonomy, and Engagement

Student: Lotte Timmermans

Student ID: 5674255

Supervisor: dr. Sabine van Wesemael 2nd_supervisor: _{dr. Jelle Koopmans}

Exam: MA Thesis Literary Studies (Research) Location: University of Amsterdam

(2)

Introduction

Abstract

This thesis examines the debate on the position of literature in the Netherlands. According to many novelists, critics, and academics, the position of literature is in a critical stage, and this thought has influenced the content of many newspapers, magazines, TV-shows, and scholarly work. This influence is also noticeable in the publication of Thomas Vaessens’ De revanche van de roman; literatuur, autoriteit en engagement (The Revenge of the Novel: Literature, Legitimacy, and Commitment 20091_{) and the critical essay}

collection “Over de Roman” (2008-2013, translation “On the Novel” – LT). In The Revenge of the Novel Vaessens, professor in contemporary Dutch literature, argues that he recognizes a new trend towards more engaged novels in response to the precarious position of literature in society. He links this trend in contemporary international literature to the Dutch situation, and shows the emergence of engagement in Dutch literature. He claims that, since the position of literature has become marginalized in contemporary society, authors are trying to find a new approach in reaching the reader (14). As Vaessens recognizes engagement as a tool internationally used by authors to reconnect with their audiences, he argues that the future of a strong position for literature lies in the engaged novel.

Vaessens’ study has received many critical responses, mainly by literary journalists and novelists themselves. Their objections vary from claims that Vaessens’ theoretical foundation is imprecise (Heijne 2009; Storm 2009; ‘t Hart 2009; Van den Hemel, Ponte, and Vriezen 2009), to claims that he does not understand the value of good taste in literature (Heijne 2009, 2011; Storm 2009). It could be argued that these critics believe literature should be autonomous instead of engaged, as Vaessens proposes. This ideal of autonomy is also present in the “On the Novel” series that presents a collection of essays written by five Dutch novelists, who all show their concern for the position of the novel in the Netherlands and internationally. What these essays, and articles by the previously mentioned critics, show is that their response to the crisis of literature is not fueled by

1_{In order for the flow of this text not to be disrupted by shifts from English to Dutch, I offer}

translations of all the Dutch titles. Often these titles have been translated by publisher houses or the authors themselves. However, sometimes these translations do not exist, and in those cases I will provide my own translation, which will be mentioned after the year of publication and marked by my initials LT. In case of direct translations of text, of which there are not many, I will mention the Dutch original text in a footnote.

(4)

establishing the use of literature, but rather by the attempt to find literature’s significance through value.

The Revenge of the Novel and the “On the Novel” series present two different approaches in solving the crisis of the novel in contemporary society: through the ideals of autonomy and of engagement. This opposition in literary ideals is classic in the history of literary criticism, as the ideal of autonomy emphasizes the universal value of literature, and the ideal of engagement the use of literature. These approaches are both rooted in the diminished central2_{position of literature in society, and by means of these two idealistic}

extremes both Vaessens and the essayists attempt to justify literature’s existence and their own engagement with literature. In doing so, both The Revenge of the Novel and the “On the Novel” series portray an interesting contribution to the debate on the position of literature in society today. This thesis analyses both texts in order to bring to light how these texts relate to this debate on literature’s position. First, it will analyze the crisis of literature in contemporary (Dutch) society, which will be followed by an assessment of postmodern3_{ism. Then it will examine what engagement is and how that relates to the}

ideal of autonomy. By means of close-reading both The Revenge of the Novel and the essays in the “On the Novel” series, it will show that the oppositions between engagement and autonomy are still deeply embedded in the discussion on the position of literature. In the conclusion it will lay out a possible escape from this binary approach.

Objective of the Research

In order to analyze the debate on the crisis of literature in the Netherlands, and how the oppositions between the ideal of autonomy and of engagement function in it, this thesis will be concerned with an examination of texts on literature, not of literature. By means of comparison, it will discuss the theories used on engaged literature in Vaessens’ The Revenge of the Novel, and the essay series “On the Novel.” Besides these key-texts this research will also consist of literary and historical cultural theory concerning

2_{Vaessens, the essayists, and some of the critics and scholars mentioned in this thesis argue that}

literature once held a central position in society. Although this claim is quite bold – there is no definite proof that literature or a certain type of literature was ever absolutely central in society – this thesis acknowledges the believe in a ‘central’ literature as such a believe illustrates a certain kind of fear or wish of what literature could or should become. Therefore, the oppositions central and marginal will be used in relation to the position of literature in society.

3 _{Do note that throughout this thesis the notions modernism, post-modernism, and}

late-postmodernism (meaning the cultural time-slots) and the notions modernist, post-modernist, and late-modernist (meaning the theoretical frameworks) will be used interchangeably. Not because this thesis does not acknowledge the difference, but because both the –isms and the –ists are

(5)

postmodernism and late- and postmodernism (Den Dulk 2011, 2015; Foster 1997; Green 2005; Rutten 2011, forthcoming; Vaessens and Van Dijk 2011; Van Wesemael and Van der Poll 2015), and engagement and autonomy (Heumakers 2004; MacLaughlin 2004; Vaessens and Van Dijk 2011; Whiting 1948). Furthermore, it will make use of popular criticism as well, especially in connection to Vaessens’ academic research (Heijne 2009; Storm 2009; ’t Hart 2009; Van Den Hemel, Ponte and Vriezen 2009).

This thesis recognizes that the ideals of autonomy and engagement both function as theoretical frameworks that are used by Vaessens and the essayists in the “On the Novel” series, in order to prove the relevance of literature in a time in which the position of literature is critical in society. In both The Revenge of the Novel and the essays, the authors seem to agree on the idea that the position of literature has become marginalized. As this thesis will show, both types of critical works attempt to restore the more central position literature once had, but with different techniques. Whereas, as a professor of literature, Vaessens’ approach of engaged literature is founded deeply in literary and cultural academic theory, the method of the essayists is characterized by a more personal approach and ditto preferences. Although most of the latter group do refer to academic criticism and theories occasionally, they do not assess these criticisms and theories very critically and objectively. This section of the thesis will analyze the differences in the approaches Vaessens and the essayists take in the discussion on the marginalized position of literature in contemporary society. It will show that these different approaches, and arguments that result from those approaches, are fundamentally linked to the ideals of autonomy and engagement.

As Vaessens attempts to debunk the ideal of autonomy by linking it to the humanist position that characterized modernism, and defends the ideal of engagement by linking it to the newly established late-postmodern position that characterizes late-postmodernism, it would be productive to briefly analyze the frameworks of modernism, postmodernism, and late-postmodernism. This second section serves as a theoretical understanding and assessment of Vaessens’ late-postmodern theory and the central position of engagement in it. As his assessment of academic theory is often incomplete or quite abstract in The Revenge of the Novel, this section will discuss additional theories concerned with late- or post-postmodernism and its characteristics. It will discuss in more detail Vaessens’ distinction between the humanist (modern), relativist (postmodern), and late-postmodern positions, and clarify what late-postmodernism actually is, and what its characteristics are besides engagement.

(6)

In the third and final section we will finally analyze the discussion on engaged literature and autonomous literature. However, before we can assess the oppositions of these ideals, it is of great importance to establish what engaged and autonomous literature actually are. In order to clarify the distinction between the two, this section will mostly focus on engaged literature and the objections this ideal deals with. These objections all resonate with the ideal of autonomous literature. Then Vaessens’ engagement will be discussed, followed by the approach of autonomous literature by the essayists. This analysis will show that Vaessens and the essayists both take an excluding position in restoring the position of literature in contemporary (Dutch) society, which leads to a non-productive attitude in literary criticism. In the conclusion this thesis will suggest a third approach in the restoration of the position of literature, in which both approaches resonate profoundly.

Literature

However, before we can begin our analysis, it would be productive to first discuss the central texts, theories, and approaches for this thesis. As has been suggested in the previous part, this thesis considers Thomas Vaessens’ The Revenge of the Novel and the essay series “On the Novel” as key texts for this research. The contents of these texts are central to our analysis, and will therefore shape the content of the thesis and the use of other supporting texts immensely. These supporting texts will mostly concern media discussions about the position (and value) of literature, as well as academic theories and attributions to the discussion of the position of literature, postmodernism and late- or post-postmodernism, and engagement.

The Revenge of the Novel

As mentioned previously, The Revenge of the Novel examines the historical cultural development of the position of the novel in contemporary international and Dutch society. Although its content makes it seem that Vaessens’ book is mostly about Dutch literature, he does consider the recent developments of the position of the novel (and literature on the whole) as an international phenomenon. However, it is important to note that Vaessens easily shifts between international and national situations and theories, which makes it difficult for the reader (and the researcher for that matter) to distinguish where in the text he focuses on the international developments or on national developments.

(7)

For example, on page fifteen Vaessens begins a paragraph with a reference to a list of Dutch authors he considers to be late-postmodern. In the next sentence he argues that he will, and I am paraphrasing here, distinguish their (the Dutch authors’) late-postmodern poetics from two other dominant positions in the post-war literary debate. What follows is a broad discussion about the development of postmodernism as it occurred internationally, not particular to the development of postmodernism in the Netherlands, as Vaessens argues that postmodernism was introduced fairly late in comparison to other ‘national’ postmodernisms, due to the reluctance of academic and popular critics to take it seriously (55). Page 15 is not the only instance in which Vaessens does not make a clear distinction between the national situation and the international one.

This ambiguous assessment of theory by Vaessens is also present in his use on theories on modernism, postmodernism, and late-postmodernism. Vaessens links these three periods to the humanist position, the relativist position, and the late-postmodernist position respectively. As mentioned by Van den Hemel, Ponte and Vriezen in “Een postmodernisme met tanden” (2009, translation “A Postmodernism with Teeth” – LT) Vaessens tripartite distinction between these different time-periods and positions is attractive in its argument, but very broad and imprecise in its treatment of critical theory. As this thesis is aware of Vaessens’ incomplete, or rather imprecise, discussion of these theories, this thesis considers theories from critical and scholarly texts as additions to Vaessens’ discussions of modernism, postmodernism, late-postmodernism, and engagement, whenever they are in need of clarification or a more critical approach. For example, in the section on the development of late-postmodernism, Vaessens’ analysis of late-postmodernism and the unsatisfactory progress of postmodernism will be discussed alongside the theories of other scholars. I will do the same in the discussion of engagement. It will show that Vaessens’ theories are similar to those by other scholars essentially, but that his execution of using theory and shaping his argument is sometimes incomplete.

“On the Novel” Series

From 2008 to 2013 the Koninklijke Vereniging van het Boekenvak (KVB, translation Royal Society of the Dutch Book – LT) initiated the publication of the essay series “On the Novel.” According to their own website, the KVB performs as an umbrella organization that connects commercial, cultural, and political actors concerned with the novel and affiliated products, and acts as a link between the publishing business and

(8)

politics. The objective of publishing the essay series “On the Novel” – which the KVB organized together with the Nederlands Letterenfonds (Dutch Foundation for Literature, a distributor of governmental grants in literary projects) – was to voice the author’s perspective in the debate on the value of literature today. Five novelists from the Netherlands have been selected for the series: A.F.Th. van der Heijden, Connie Palmen, Bas Heijne, Marcel Möring, and Oek de Jong. This part of the thesis will introduce each of the authors and will provide a short summary of each essay.

In 2008, it is A.F.Th. Van der Heijden (1951) who kicks the series off with his essay Kruis en kraai: De romankunst na James Joyce (translation Cross and Crow: The Art of the Novel after James Joyce – LT). Van der Heijden has been active as a novelist since 1978 and is also known to have published novels as Patrizio Canaponi and A.F.Th. He is mostly known for his multi-novel saga De tandeloze tijd (The Toothless Time 1983, 1985, 1990, 1992, 1996) and Tonio (2011).

Van der Heijden’s essay Cross and Crow is mostly concerned with his views on what the novel does, ought to do, and what options that gives the novelist in creating his or her own work. By presenting his views in epistolary essays addressed to Anthony Mertens – a former literary critic and professor of literature, and, most importantly, a good friend of the author’s – Van der Heijden enables himself to voice his views on writing the novel through an interesting mixture of prose and criticism. In comparison to the later four essays that will be discussed later, Van der Heijden’s essay is rather explanatory as it explores the different ways in which he, as a writer, is inspired in writing. Additionally, Van der Heijden does not discuss the value of literature in contemporary culture or according to critics, academics, and the public in depth. Cross and Crow could best be understood as an essay in which a novelist shares his passion and love for writing and reading literature with his readers.

This personal and descriptive position Van der Heijden takes regarding the position and value of literature debate, is quite different from the other essays. This difference might best be explained by the heated discussion in Dutch (literary) culture that followed Vaessens’ The Revenge of the Novel. In the same year, Connie Palmen (1955) presented the Dutch public with the second essay in the series: Het geluk van de eenzaamheid (2009, translation The Pleasure of Loneliness – LT). Palmen debuted as a novelist in 1991 with the publication of De wetten (The Laws). She is most famous in the Netherlands for her novel I.M. (1998) and her many public appearances, primarily in the popular Dutch daily talk show “De wereld draait door” (translation “The World Keeps Turning” – LT).

(9)

In The Pleasure of Loneliness, Palmen attempts to chart the effects of true literature. She believes that the position of literature has become precarious because there is no clear distinction between true literature and genre literature. Palmen recognizes that in contemporary society literature is becoming less and less important, and that popular debates are only about easily digestible information, as presented in genre fiction, which all add up to the impoverishment of the literary novel (27-9). She furthermore states that in contemporary society readers are not interested in philosophical and psychological novels anymore. Instead, they greedily read thrillers, fashion, gossip, and other genre fiction (18, 68). Although Palmen argues twice that she is not out to judge those who do not read “high literature,” she is very clear in her opinion that she believes that the future of the novel depends on strengthening the position of true literature. Her essay can be quite resolute in its argumentation of what true literature ought to be, especially since Palmen refuses to assess what the actual position of literature is in contemporary society. Besides, she does not offer any room for different interpretations or discussion in her essay. With The Pleasure of Loneliness Palmen, shares her disaffection with the rise of populist culture and the populist novel, while arguing for the perseverance of true literary fiction.

The third out of five essays in the “On the Novel” series, is Bas Heijne’s Echt zien. Literatuur in het mediatijdperk (2011, translation To Really See: Literature in the Age of Media – LT). Known for his work as a literary translator and popular critic, Bas Heijne (1960) has also been active as a novelist since 1983. His most notable novels are Laatste woorden (Last Words 1983) and Suez (1992).

In To Really See, Heijne assesses the position of literature in a society in which digital media are centralized. Throughout the essay, it is clear that Heijne is in search of the use and value of literature when so many competing media of fiction exist, such as film, photography, and the Internet. Although Heijne attempts to present his readers with a clear overview of the current state of literature in the media age, of the history of the marginalization of literature, and of how he believes that literature can be saved, he mostly voices pessimistic viewpoints that argue that literature has lost its central position in society forever, which he tries to relativize to no avail. Heijne’s pessimistic approach of contemporary culture, and especially of the position of the novel in it, does not provide any room for the novel to develop with the age in which it lives. From his conservative point of view, the novel is indeed bound to disappear from the face of the earth, never to return. Regrettably, he does not give much attention to those optimists

(10)

who see new possibilities for the novel in this digital age. Ironically Heijne’s conclusion on the last page voices a positivist stance that literature will remain relevant as long as novelists engage with the world of their readers (99).

Marcel Möring (1957) succeeds Heijne in the essay series with his essay De hele wereld (2012, translation The Whole World – LT). As a Dutch novelist, Möring debuted in 1990 with Mendels erfenis (Mendel’s Inheritance) and published many other novels and essays since, amongst which Het grote verlangen (The Great Longing 1992) and In Babylon (1997).

The Whole World starts out with an anecdote of how Möring started writing as a novelist. It was only after a while that he recognized that he felt the need to narrate his memories, but he did not know how to achieve such introspection yet (8). The main argument in Möring’s essay is that the novel and the novelist are necessary for society in general, for it is through introspective fiction that people make sense of life. In fact, it is fiction in the form of the novel that makes life valuable (24, 45, 78). Similar to Palmen and Heijne, and also, later, De Jong, Möring recognizes that in contemporary society, which is characterized by the ever-growing need for consumption and entertainment, the novel is losing its value (59). As the position of literature is declining in contemporary society, Möring argues that novelists should use the magical and enchanting power of literature to transcend the reader’s mind and experiences, in order to reclaim the relevance of literature (78). Through engagement with the world around us in the novel, and through engagement with the novel, Möring believes that we can engage with the reality that surrounds us (81).

The last author in the essay series is Oek de Jong (1952), who wrote Wat alleen de roman kan zeggen (What Only the Novel Can Say) in 2013. De Jong has been active as a novelist and essayist since 1977. Some of his notable works are Opwaaiende zomerjurken (Billowing Summer Frocks 1979) and Pier en oceaan (Pier and Ocean 2013).

In What Only the Novel Can Say, De Jong explores the marginalization of the novel in contemporary society. Simultaneously, comparable to Heijne, he attempts to understand why the novel has become less central in contemporary society. He argues that it is the result of time becoming scarce in a world driven by ever-growing capitalism, which interconnects the global digitally, and in which almost everyone can access almost anything anywhere via the Internet. In today’s digitalized and globalized society, reading a novel is simply not (time) efficient, he argues (24). De Jong’s essay is not an ode to the novel, but rather a reconsideration of the function and the position of the novel in contemporary society, a society that is characterized by digitalization and globalization.

(11)

The central question to his essay is: How can the novel survive in a culture in which it needs to compete with so many other media? (9). As De Jong considers the devalued position of literature, he states that we could ask ourselves whether the novel is not an outmoded model of fiction in a world which is now controlled by other, much faster, media that serve the same purpose: provide people with (fictional) stories (14). Although De Jong presents doubts on whether the novel still has a function in contemporary society, he clearly makes a case for the novel’s survival, for it is only the novel that enables us to unveil the secrets of life (95). With that critical position, De Jong’s approach of the value of the novel is comparable to the essays of Heijne and Möring, who also argue that the value of the novel lies in its unveiling and transcendental characteristics.

Supporting Texts

Now we have briefly discussed the authors and the content of their essays in the “On the Novel” series, we can continue with a short discussion of the most central supporting texts. In much literary research, academics argue that, internationally, contemporary literature appears to differ from previous literatures and from postmodern literature in particular (see amongst others Den Dulk 2014; Vaessens 2009, 2011; Vaessens and Van Dijk 2011). One highly relevant work on this subject is Thomas Vaessens and Yra Van Dijk’s Reconsidering the Postmodern: European Literature Beyond Relativism, which comprises a number of studies that are all concerned with the same research object (reconsiderations of postmodern literature) in different European (but also American and Spanish American) literatures. With their collection Vaessens and Van Dijk recognize an international trend in which the attitude of authors seems to have changed or is changing from the postmodern attitude. Whereas postmodern literature is predominantly characterized by relativity, irony, and an ‘anything goes’ attitude, this new development in literature hints at a more sincere and engaged approach of the text and its audience. The most productive aspect of the research by Vaessens and Van Dijk is that they offer comparative research that shows that this change in attitude in contemporary literature is a fairly recent phenomenon, that takes place and is shaped differently in European (and American) literatures, while, simultaneously, the literatures all share certain aspects and trends. For example, the studies by Ellen Rutten and Allard Den Dulk that are presented in the book are concerned with New Sincerity in Russian and American literatures, respectively, but how and when this New Sincerity developed in these respective countries slightly differ. The New Sincerity movement in Russia,

(12)

according to Rutten, is greatly concerned with a certain political engagement and roughly commenced in the 1980s, while the New Sincerity in America began in the 1990s and is predominantly fueled by cultural and social aspects (Rutten 2011, forthcoming; Den Dulk 2011, 2015). 4_{If we compare these studies, we can recognize both an international trend}

or continuum and a cultural and regional difference. Although this thesis is concerned with the question of late- or post-postmodernism and the function of engagement in Dutch literature, it does consider international trends, despite its primary focus on the Dutch situation. With this approach, this thesis attempts to hold a wider international relevance that might be useful for future comparative studies on late- or post-postmodernism and engagement.

As mentioned earlier, this thesis examines the reactions to the crisis of literature in the Netherlands organized around two ideals: engagement and autonomy. According to Vaessens and Van Dijk, the “Turning to Commitment” (by which they refer to engagement) is one of the characteristics of late- or post-postmodernism, a phenomenon worked out in more detail by Vaessens in his The Revenge of the Novel (2009), in which he assesses postmodernism and the engaged novel. According to Vaessens, the late-postmodern novel is politically and socially engaged, a trend he believes is welcomed by readers who experienced a detachment of the novel from the world outside it. However, due to Vaessens’ occasionally ambiguous theoretical approach, the texts by Vaessens and Van Dijk, and additionally by Rutten, Den Dulk, Fleming, and many others, will serve as supporting and clarifying theories on late- or post-postmodernism and engagement. Additionally, the thesis will occasionally use critical articles from authors and popular critics. First of all, because Vaessens’ research has received a lot of criticism from Dutch authors and popular critics5_{, as some argue that Vaessens approaches literature as a tool,}

and not as an art form (Heijne 2009; Storm 2009; ’t Hart 2009). Secondly, these texts by authors and popular critics will serve as illustrations of the wider debate on the position of literature in the Netherlands.

4_{Do take note that Den Dulk himself is weary of using the term New Sincerity. I agree with his}

argument that both the New and the Sincerity parts of the notion are highly problematic. However, for this comparison it is relevant to consider the research on sincerity by Den Dulk, but also by Rutten, as supporting theories in a broader sense as they show similar trends to late-postmodern literature in social, political, and cultural respects.

5_{In this thesis, I make a distinction between academic critics and popular critics. Whereas in the}

overall international debate the literary critic is often affiliated with a university and the academic literary debate, in the Netherlands such an affiliation is often not present. As a result, academic critics and popular critics do not often share the same frameworks or registers in which they ground their opinions and finding, which sometimes can lead to differences in approach, while

(13)

Methodology

Here I would like to spend some words explaining the choices I have made in the selection and treatment of both the primary and secondary texts that serve the content of this thesis. The excluding and including selections I have made for this research are twofold. First, in this thesis I have chosen to focus on the debate on the position of literature in the Netherlands, rather than internationally, which is essentially a national selection. The reason I chose to research only the situation in a national context is because it would have been impossible within the scope of this thesis to take on a broader international approach. In other words, I had to minimize the scope of the research. I have chosen for a national approach because I recognized an interesting debate on the critical position of literature in the Netherlands, as it exemplifies the classical opposition between the ideals of autonomy and engagement. As this thesis will show, engagement in literature has internationally indeed been a trend in contemporary literature for decades, and many scholars believe that this trend signals a change in or a break with postmodernism. To summarize, my choice in focusing on the Netherlands is twofold: first, I had to minimize the scope of my research to fit this thesis, and second, I recognized a debate in Dutch society that is extremely relevant to this topic.

Additionally, I have made selections of the readings I use for this thesis. Again, mostly to fit the reach of this thesis, I have chosen to compare only two sets of texts in detail: The Revenge of the Novel and the “On the Novel” series. I am well aware that I exclude other, possibly very relevant, texts on the matter with this choice. However, I cannot discuss all the relevant texts that would benefit this research, for reasons of brevity. The same goes for the selection of critical responses and theory. All critical responses are Dutch texts, since they are the only ones I could find who critically engage with the debates on the position of literature in Netherlands and Vaessens’ theory of engaged literature. The critical theory I use, however, is more internationally oriented, and comes predominantly from Dutch, American, and English scholars. Most often, I use the theories and research by American and English (and at times Dutch) scholars to draw comparisons between the Dutch situation and the international situation, in order to analyze the particular Dutch situation most productively. Most of the works by Dutch scholars I refer to in order to better understand the Dutch situation internally.

Hopefully this disclaimer on the excluding and including choices I had to make for this particular research helps you, the reader, to better understand some approaches or arguments. Although I would prefer an all-inclusive research, this is simply impossible,

(14)

not only within the scope of this thesis, but for any research project, no matter how big. In terms of Vaessens’ occasionally confusing discussion of national and international situations and developments, I have chosen to interpret these ambiguous discussions as both national and international, simultaneously. In other words, I understand them to be interchangeable in his argument if he does not make a clear distinction between them. However, I will secure the critical assessment of Vaessens’ arguments and analyses, by testing them alongside other critical and theoretical studies, as I will do with any other text that serves this research.

Crisis in Literature?

The debate on the position of literature in society is not restricted to the Netherlands alone. Both in and outside of the Netherlands, many have argued that the position of literature finds itself in a crisis. Others argue that the position of literature, like that of any other cultural product, is not in crisis, but rather simply changing with the times. This section explores these different stances, and the rhetoric behind them.

In “Literatuur is meer dan moralisme” (2009, translation “Literature is more than Moralism” – LT) Hans Hoenjet – author and literary and cultural critic for HP/De Tijd and NRC Handelsblad – interviews three Dutch novelists about late-postmodern and the call for more engaged literature, as argued by Thomas Vaessens in The Revenge of the Novel. Hoenjet opens the article with the question whether literature is in a crisis in contemporary society, and this question is central throughout the interview. Interviewees Bas Heijne (the earlier discussed novelist and one of the central essayists in this thesis), Marjolijn Februari (novelist and presented by Vaessens as an engaged author in The Revenge of the Novel), and Christiaan Weijts (novelist) are not very pessimistic about the contemporary position of literature in society, as all recognize that many people read literature. However, they do acknowledge that the focus in literary criticism lies mostly on the novelists, instead of on the readers. Heijne argues that contemporary society has changed, and that book promotions via overt traditional media such as newspapers and television are challenged by covert media such as blogs and forums on the Internet. On the question how to solve the crisis of the position of literature, the novelists share their opinion that the impact literature can have on its readers should be discussed more often in literary criticism and journalism. Heijne argues that we should discuss the personal experiences a novel brings about more, to which Weijts adds that debates on literature should become more personalized. Whether these personal experiences with a

(15)

novel are positive or negative is not important, as long as such personal discussions on novels come about. Februari adds that novels strengthen the internal democracy of individuals, for novels add other perspectives and stances introduced by the authors. However, she does acknowledge the possibility that people do not feel the need for other perspectives besides their own. But, she argues, if we would consider that trend as a crisis, it would sooner signal a political crisis, rather than a literary one.

Although in this interview all three authors argue that they do not share the idea that the position of literature in contemporary society is in a crisis, there are others who argue differently. According to them, the position of the novel in contemporary society appears to have reached its least dominant position for over the last four decades (Farrell 2004, 1). Whereas previously novels took up a central position in society, that central position is now dominated by visual culture, such as film and TV-shows. Many literary critics argue – such as Antoine Compagnon (“Après la littérature” 2000), J. Hillis Miller (On Literature 2002), Mark Roche (Why Literature Matters in the 21st_{Century 2004), and William} Marx (L’adieu de la littérature 2005) – that this crisis literature finds itself in, is the result of the influence of the ever-expanding digital culture that dominates the minds and the lives of people today.

Besides the challenge the position of literature experiences from competing digital culture, it is also challenged by the value given to literature itself. Questions such as ‘Why do we read literature?’ and ‘Why does literature matter?’ have shaped many debates on literature in TV-shows, newspapers, and periodicals, and studies in literary criticism and theory. In addition to the literary critics mentioned in the previous paragraph, Rita Felski and Bruce Fleming have also dedicated research to this subject. In the introduction to Uses of Literature (2008) and in “What is the Value of Literary Studies” (2000), Felski and Fleming respectively examine the value and position of literature in society and academia. According to Felski, literature’s value is not a given anymore, for “[o]ld-school beliefs that exposure to literature and art was a sure path to moral improvement and cultural refinement have fallen to the way-side” (2). In her book, Felski “proposes that reading involves a logic of recognition; that aesthetic experience has analogies with enchantment in a supposedly disenchanted age; that literature creates distinctive configurations of social knowledge; that we may value the experience of being shocked by what we read” (14, italics Felski). In other words, reading a novel can have an impact on the reader in different ways, an argument shared by Februari, Heijne, and Weijts in the previously mentioned interview.

(16)

Fleming translates this transcending attribute of literature into a paradigm division. According to him, two different paradigms exist at the moment of his article: the “wisdom” paradigm that persisted in the nineteenth century, that values literature because it “makes us better people,” which is founded in philosophy; and the “knowledge” paradigm that shapes the twentieth century world view, that values literature simply “because it is there,” which is created by scientific approaches (459). Fleming argues that both paradigms do not do much justice to the position of literature in society and academia, as the wisdom paradigm is highly reductive in its selection of works that actually bring about this aspect of Bildung, while the knowledge paradigm is much too inclusive since all existing texts are valued merely because of their existence (460). As he recognizes that a return to the wisdom paradigm in answer to the insufficiency of the knowledge paradigm is occurring in contemporary society, he proposes that a “New Wisdom” paradigm might be the solution to overcome the negative selection criteria of both paradigms (465, 468).

It is important to note that Fleming’s approach of the value of literature is mainly directed at the value of literature in literary studies. However, the arguments of his study in favor of literature and the right approach of literature, do fit the position of literature in society on the whole. Fleming proposes that this new wisdom paradigm should remain critical towards its predecessors, the wisdom and the knowledge paradigms. As the wisdom paradigm was too constraining in its Bildung criterion for literature to be relevant for research, and the knowledge paradigm too inclusive in its selection based on ‘it is there so it is relevant,’ he proposes that the new wisdom paradigm should return literature to its readers, as, he argues, “value in reading […] is not based on constraint” and neither on science (470). In line with Felski’s argument, and the argument of the novelists in the interview with Hoenjet, Fleming also proposes that the value of literature should be more concerned with the effects literature can have on its readers.

This attitude can also be detected in the works central to this research: the essay series “On the Novel” and Thomas Vaessens’ The Revenge of the Novel. However, the stances these texts express are slightly different from one another in terms of theoretical frameworks and in idealistic approaches. Vaessens is obviously more concerned with existing literary theory and criticism, as he presents an objective literary study of the contemporary Dutch novel in which he approaches literature from the ideal of engagement. The authors, on the other hand, are more personally involved in their

(17)

essays, in which they occasionally mention literary theory and criticism in order to support their claim, rather than critically assessing the readings they use.

Whereas the essayists all seem to defend the position of the novel by the intrinsic value the novel has for the reader, Vaessens rather explores the useful qualities of the novel that could return the novel to its once more centralized position in society. Vaessens argues that the novel can reclaim its status by becoming more socially and politically engaged, while the essayists believe that the novel should remain an autonomous form of art. This next section will discuss both of these approaches in more detail.

“On the Novel”: The Challenges of Literature

In the essay series “On the Novel,” De Jong, in What Only the Novel Can Say, examines the position of the novel in times of increasing digitalization and globalization. He argues that in the last 25 years the digital revolution has changed contemporary society in many aspects: from social life to politics, from economics to science and culture (15). As one of the effects of this digital revolution, De Jong recognizes an increasingly central position for visual culture, a position once occupied by the novel (15-16). Furthermore, the digitalization and globalization of contemporary society also has the effect that people are both more informed (mostly via the Internet) and mobilized internationally (16). As a result, boundaries between cultures and peoples have slowly been lifted, ensuing a de-hierarchization of low and high culture (17). This last development, according to De Jong, has had great consequences for the position of the novel. As TV-shows took over the central position in society, the novel was pushed back to the margins. In order for people to read novels, marketing and advertising schemes are launched to popularize new novels and (new) authors (18). And the novel itself needs to make sure not to be too complex or lengthy, as reading should remain time efficient in a society driven by financial profit (24).

Van der Heijden draws a similar conclusion in his essay Cross and Crow. According to him, literature has become a luxury product due to the economization of society, culture, and our lives in the Netherlands today. He recognizes that the contemporary reader is driven by (again) time efficient choices, and thus rather choses to read a thin and simple novel instead of a thick and complex one (17, 92). As a result, Van der Heijden argues, low literary novels such as “thrillers” are becoming increasingly popular, while the high literary works of art lose the interest of the reader and the publishing companies (15-16). This trend in novel reading and publishing also affects the authors who should write a novel that fits this trend of time efficiency. The novel should be short, and not too

(18)

complex, for it should reach as many readers as possible (15). To Van der Heijden’s regret, this devaluation of what the novel is and should be in Dutch culture has also influenced the raise in taxes on novels, for the Dutch government also considers novels to be a luxury product and not a necessity to the lives of the people (19-20). The times that the novel had a central position in society and functioned as a necessity rather than an elitist luxury product appear to be over, Van der Heijden seems to admit in his essay. In addition to De Jong and Van der Heijden, Bas Heijne also contributes to this discussion of the marginalized position of literature in contemporary society with his essay To Really See: Literature in the Age of Media. Although the title of his essay suggests that the content will present an examination of the position of literature in a society where visual media are central, Heijne is more concerned with determining what literature is, has been, and should be. Nonetheless, at times Heijne does critically assess the effects of digital culture on the position of the novel. As a journalist for Dutch daily newspaper “NRC Handelsblad,” Heijne recognized in his interviews with (national and international) novelists that almost every one of them admitted that literature holds a less prominent position in contemporary culture than it did previously (16). Heijne continues that this devaluation of literature seems to have come from within culture itself, as it appears that it is the world (including its novelists) that holds literature irrelevant (18). Ever-increasing digitalization and mass communication are two of the main drives behind the devaluation of literature, Heijne argues (29). Furthermore, he states that previously the novel was the main medium to which people turned for fiction, but today fiction has increasingly taken over our complete view on the world (46). Media does not solely present us (visual) representations of reality; it provides us with information about the world in a story-telling way, in which it creates a new (semi-fictional) reality (ibid.). Heijne continues that although in this media culture the media have great power over the consumer and his/her choices and actions, in return the consumer him/herself also has a lot of power over media and institutions. From politics to science, from journalism to art, every aspect of society needs to reach and serve as many people as possible (52). Besides Heijne, De Jong, and Van der Heijden, Möring and Palmen also recognize that the novel’s position in society is not as central as before. However, all essayists do believe that the novel still has great value for contemporary society, although their arguments differ slightly in content. Heijne concludes his essay that the novel has the ability to make us ‘really see’ (94). Whereas most stories shared in the world by other media perform as generalizing, hostile, or destructive texts, the novel attempts to show

(19)

the other side of those closed stories from which a counter-ideal or thought is immediately shielded (95). Literature attempts to unmask what is masked, to unveil what is veiled. As in contemporary digitalized society an overflow of media and information have created even more complexities in our view of the world, it is the job of the novel to aid and adjust our view in order to overcome these complexities (99).

Palmen makes a similar claim as Heijne, but does not support the idea that literature needs to unveil or unmask a truth that is veiled or unmasked, as these metaphors suggest that there is an absolute truth we need to discover (22). She argues that literature rather unravels the complexities of the world and human existence (107). According to Palmen, literature’s main goal is to give meaning to the world and human existence as it explores and unravels the world inside us and around us (14). This argument is also supported in Möring’s essay, as he foregrounds the exploring character of literature and in particular the novel (8, 24). In addition, he argues, the novel attempts to make whole of what at first sight might seem scattered. The novel gives meaning to what initially was perceived as meaningless (77). By means of this exploring character of literature, the novel is able to present the reader the whole world, in which not one but many perspectives together create a wholeness that cannot exist outside of the novel (81). Van der Heijden is the third essayist who mentions the novel’s ability of exploring life and the world. However, he focuses mainly on experiments with fiction that enables authors to explore beyond what is already known (31).

Of the essayists, De Jong’s stance seems to come closest to the idea that the novel has a moralizing function in contemporary society. According to De Jong, the novel is not special because of its fictional elements, but rather because of its introspective abilities (59). Due to the increase in digital media, people are constantly shaping and telling their lives in stories through telephone, texts, etcetera, while the introspective and self-reflexivity is not offered by those who hear or read these stories. De Jong argues that the novel is the only medium that does offer such an introspective and self-reflexive approach (92, 95). And by means of introspection and self-reflexivity, it can only be the novel that presents us with the broadest comprehensible view on the world around us (89).

To summarize, according to the essayists the position of literature – and in particular of the novel – is mainly challenged by the popularity of visual and digital media, and the urge of people to live their lives as time-efficiently as possible. However, they do not necessarily argue that literature is in a crisis. Heijne, for example, states that literature has

(20)

supposedly been in a crisis as long as its existence, while it has always remained present in society. He questions himself and his readers why this time it would be any different, while he simultaneously acknowledges that he fears that not defending the position of literature could have disastrous consequences (28, 36, 38). In The Revenge of the Novel, Vaessens takes a similar stance in the debate of the marginalized position of literature, but, and this is where his argument differs from that of the essayists, he does not defend the value of literature but the use of it. Whereas the essayists do fear that the value of literature for society will one day completely disappear in the public opinion, Vaessens explores the possibilities how we can secure the position of literature in society by means of highlighting its use through engagement.

Crisis of Literature: The Revenge of Late-postmodernism

In the introduction to The Revenge of the Novel, Vaessens immediately states that the position of literature in the Netherlands is in a crisis. His observation is not different from those who have been discussed previously in this thesis, as Vaessens too recognizes that the position of literature in Dutch (and international) society was more centralized and had a broader reach in the past than it does now (13). In accordance with previously mentioned arguments, Vaessens too argues that the position of literature has become marginalized in society due to the increasing popularity of other media and the power of consumers. However, whereas the previously discussed texts attempt to justify the existence and importance of literature in society, by means of arguing the intrinsic value of literature, Vaessens simply recognizes this as a trend of validating literature – as a proper professor in literature ought to – and refrains from making any value judgments himself.

In accordance with the essayists, and others that have been discussed, Vaessens prefers the position of literature to become more centralized again, but he does not want to establish that by means of defending the value of literature. Instead, he argues that literature should rather present its use to its readers, and he believes that literature can only establish that by engaging with the world outside of literature, the world in which the readers live (14). Vaessens argues that in the times of modernism and postmodernism, the content of novels became increasingly detached from the world outside the text, which eventually led to a marginalized position of literature. The outcome of engaged literature (the return to a more centralized position of literature in society) will be literature’s ‘revenge’ for the marginalized position it has devolved to, due to autonomy’s isolating methods.

(21)

Vaessens proposes that the relativist stance of postmodernism, which opted to debunk the humanist position of modernism that argues that literature should be autonomous and universal, has proven insufficient in protecting the position of literature. Therefore, he argues that the rise in engaged novels, which opt to restore the relationship with its authors by means of engaging with social and political issues from their world and realities, signal a new age: late-postmodernism. If we consider Fleming’s divisions of the wisdom, knowledge, and new wisdom paradigm again, and his division between the wisdom and knowledge paradigm, in particular, we could argue that his wisdom paradigm would fit the humanist position of Vaessens, and the knowledge paradigm the relativist position. Both Vaessens and Fleming argue that the wisdom paradigm/humanist position and the knowledge paradigm/relativist position have had disastrous effects on the position of literature on the whole. In both approaches, Fleming and Vaessens argue that there is a shift occurring away from the latter paradigm/position, towards what Vaessens refers to as late-postmodernism.

The next section will show that Fleming and Vaessens are not the only scholars who notice such a change. However, before we can assess the shift to late-postmodernism and the function of engagement in it, it would be beneficial for this thesis’ analysis to first examine how modernism and postmodernism were unable to protect the position of literature in society. As postmodernism initially attempted to restore the isolated position of literature created by postmodernism, but failed in the process due to the all-encompassing relativist position, we will first examine what main characteristics of postmodernism made it an insufficient register. This will be followed by a discussion of how postmodernism evolved into late-postmodernism (according to some even post-postmodernism). After this observation of how the critical position of literature has been the effect of the politics of both modernism and postmodernism, we can finally turn to Vaessens’ belief that engagement can turn the tides, and restore the position of literature in society.

Towards a Late- or Post-postmodernism

A clear definition of a late- or, according to some, a post-postmodernism is difficult to come by. Already postmodernism is quite a complex and ambiguous term, and its successor late- or post-postmodernism is not easier to understand because of it. Therefore, it will be productive to first establish a basic understanding of postmodernism. Ever since postmodernism’s early beginnings, many scholarly works

(22)

have argued that a single definition of postmodernism is difficult to tackle, because what are we actually dealing with? Is it a concept, a paradigm, a theory, a trend, a discourse, an age, a cultural manifestation, or all of the above? Postmodernism is present in many different cultural objects such as literature, film, architecture, economics, politics, and popular culture, and performs differently in all these incarnations. In addition, postmodernism is often used as an umbrella term to refer to contemporary trends that share the same characteristics. However, it is safe to say that there is one thing about postmodernism academics are certain about: it is deeply embedded in all aspects of contemporary society (e.g. Bertens and Fokkema 1997; Brann 1992; McHale 2013; Vaessens 2009; Vaessens and Van Dijk 2011; Vervaeck 1999).

And now it appears we are entering a new age some call late- or post-postmodernism, according to scholars with backgrounds ranging from literary studies and philosophy to architecture and cultural studies (e.g. Foster 1997; Green 2005; Rutten forthcoming; Vaessens and Van Dijk 2011). In The Revenge of the Novel, Vaessens too argues that engaged literature belongs to a trend in literature and culture that is different from the postmodernism we know, and suggests that we have entered a late-postmodern time (68-69). However, before we can assess what this late- or post-postmodernism entails, it is productive to first understand a basic understanding of what postmodernism is, and which aspects of postmodernism have initiated the shift towards late-or postmodernism. After establishing that, we will turn to defining late- or post-postmodernism.

On Defining Postmodernism

If we look strictly to its etymology, we first have to recognize its tripartite construction: post-modern-ism. Eva Brann, professor in philosophy, classics, and archeology, has deconstructed the etymology of postmodernism in “What is Postmodernism?” (1992) and concluded that literally postmodernism means ‘after (post) the just now (modern) habits/behaviour’ (ism) (4-5). She suggests that Postmodernism (with a capital P she refers to the epoch, with the lower case p to the “universal human disposition”) is simultaneously a break with and a continuation of modernism, as the ‘post-’ suggests an ‘after’ while leading theorist Jean-François Lyotard has argued in his many theorizations of the term that the post also suggests a ‘back again’ (6). Furthermore, the modern part of postmodernism also determines the continuing presence of modernism in its successor. She adds that the ‘post-’ in postmodernism has caused “a next epoch

(23)

unnamable,” although she already heard of the term post-postmodernism being used in academics (6).

The double relationship between postmodernism and modernism mentioned by Brann is also mentioned by Linda Hutcheon who argued in A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction (1988) that postmodernism in literature is “a reaction against the liberal humanist suppression of the historical, political, material, and social in the definition of art as eternal and universal” (178-179). In order to challenge this suppression, postmodern theory and practice have developed certain characteristics that simultaneously differ from the modernist liberal humanist ideals and are greatly influenced by the humanist value system (179). Vaessens’ approach of postmodernism builds on Hutcheon’s definition of postmodernism. The interconnectedness of modernism and postmodernism, but also of late-postmodernism, is greatly present in his study The Revenge of the Novel.

In the previous section we already established Vaessens’ three positions: the humanist position (roots in modernism), the relativist position (roots in postmodernism), and the late-postmodern position (roots in late-postmodernism). These positions are fluid, according to Vaessens, as he recognizes that the humanist position is still dominant in the postmodern age (27). Although these positions are fluid, and thus for example the humanist position can still exist in the postmodern age, he does not argue that modernism itself still exists. However, as previously mentioned, Vaessens’ handling of modern, postmodern, and late-postmodern theory is occasionally incomplete and/or imprecise (see also Storm 2009; Van den Hemel, Ponte and Vriezen 2009). Therefore, this thesis regards the best way to understand Vaessens’ postmodernism, is to consider it as a cultural framework in which we are all embedded. This framework, or paradigm, shapes how we think, act, and create continuously.

Additionally, it is important to note that Vaessens recognizes postmodernism as a new cultural position that challenged and overturned the ideological aspect of modernism that proved increasingly insufficient in post-Second World War (western) societies (40). Vaessens cleverly coins three different cultural periods that he defines as the ‘ideology of culture,’ the ‘culture of crisis,’ and the ‘crisis of culture.’ Again, we have a tripartite distinction here. If we put these together, we get the following results: framework time period (e.g. modernism) – dominant philosophy (e.g. humanist position) – position of culture (e.g. ideology of culture). In other words, Vaessens characterizes modernism itself as a framework that is present and influences all aspects of society in a set time period,

(24)

while the humanist position represents the philosophical thought that is dominant in this time. The function of culture in modernism is comparable to that of an ideology, as culture is considered to function as a humanizing tool (27). Postmodernism is characterized by relativist thought, while the crisis that is the result of that relativist position influences culture greatly. In the creation of a tripartite for the late-postmodern period, Vaessens has been less creative, probably because the theory around postmodernism is relatively new. Thus, the dominant philosophy is called the late-postmodern position, while the ‘culture of crisis’ has turned the culture into a crisis. Now, back to Vaessens’ definition of postmodernism. He explains that postmodernism takes on a relativistic position in respect to the ideals of modernism (40). He concludes that this relativistic stance is created by a ‘culture of crisis’: after the Second World War capitalism became an ideology rather than just an economic system. The lives of the common people became increasingly affected by capitalist thought, while, simultaneously, technological developments of the digital created a culture of information in which distances between peoples, countries, and ideologies became smaller and smaller (42). As a result of these main developments, Vaessens argues that two main cultural aspects came into being: postmodern culture and postmodern thought. The former, postmodern culture, is highly influenced by late-capitalist dynamics, which led to the emancipation of low culture and created an explosion in cultural production. For literature, this created an increase in competition with other media, which eventually led to its declining central position in society: the postmodern individual now had access to easier and faster entertainment besides reading a time-consuming book (42). In terms of postmodern thought, Vaessens continues, the loss of metanarratives (Lyotard) had the greatest impact. According to Lyotard, the ideologies of modernism were fueled with the idea that all cultural and social developments were the result of the ever-improving (western) civilization and universal values. Whereas in modernism Eurocentric acts and thought were both founded and legitimized by these metanarratives, postmodernism relativizes these universal values as context bounded ideological constructions (43-44).

Vaessens argues that both postmodern culture and postmodern thought influenced the position of literature in society. Postmodern culture changed literature socially, in the sense that literature had to compete with other, more easily accessible, media. Simultaneously, postmodern thought altered the content of literature, as the relativist aspect of postmodern thought made authors turn critical towards the ideals of the

(25)

humanist ideals of modernism (46). Highly critical and distrusting of the world around us, postmodern authors deconstructed the universal criteria and the claim of truth proposed by modernism in order to unravel the constructs that lie at the core of our thoughts, acts, and creations. As postmodern culture deconstructed the central position of literature externally, and postmodern thought deconstructed the function and value of literature internally, the overall position of literature in society became precarious, Vaessens argues (49-50). Especially since the relativist aspect of postmodernism introduced new characteristics to literature, which resulted in an increasing detachment of literature from society (63).

This definition, or rather summary, of postmodernism given by Vaessens, does not differ much from those in other research and criticism. As we have already seen in the previous section of this thesis, many authors, critics, and scholars view capitalism and digital technological developments as the greatest influences on and of postmodern thought and culture. Also, as we have recognized previously, the tripartite distinctions Vaessens draws between the different frameworks or periods of thought, is mentioned by Bruce Fleming. Similar to Vaessens, he argues that the knowledge paradigm, or postmodernist thought, has proven destructive for the position of literature in society, as it is “insufficient to found a sense of value in literary studies” (468). Both Vaessens and Fleming argue that their respective positions and paradigms can exist simultaneously in a framework or time period different from the one they are created in. For example the humanist position or the wisdom paradigm can exist in the postmodern framework or alongside the knowledge paradigm (Vaessens 45, Fleming 465). Additionally, they recognize that the humanist position or wisdom paradigm when used in postmodernism is then borrowed from a previous period, namely modernism. When such a borrowing still exists, both argue, in a slightly different way, that the establishment of a new position or paradigm is necessary in order to fit the period. Vaessens proposes the late-postmodern position while Fleming believes a new wisdom paradigm is at hand.

Postmodernism: Failing Characteristics

The reasons for Vaessens and Fleming to propose a new position or paradigm, is because the existing ones have proven not beneficial for the position of literature in contemporary society. Even though, Vaessens argues, postmodernism attempted to restore the isolating effects of modernism on the position of literature, it failed in doing so. The main characteristics of postmodernism that offered a more critical and self-aware stance in literature and postmodern culture on the whole, resulted in the detachment of

(26)

literature in society. However, this detachment of literature was not the goal of postmodern thought. The ideal of the relativist position was to engage with the social and political, but from a critical distance to establish the most objective approach of situation, thoughts, and events (81). In order to create this distance, postmodern authors used tools such as irony, relativism, and an ‘anything goes’ attitude in order to deconstruct the world around them (68). However, the power of these tools was underestimated and their downfall became unstoppable in literature, which eventually led to a complete deconstruction of all the aspects of the world outside the novel (65-66). As a result, the relativist position created even more detachment than the humanist position did, the same position the relativists tried to improve on (67).

But how was it possible for these postmodern characteristics of irony, relativism, and ‘anything goes’ to have such destructive consequences, while it was not the intention of the postmodernists to destruct but rather to mend? Unfortunately, besides discussing the historical and cultural context of postmodernism in great detail, Vaessens does not provide his readers with a clear definition of what he believes postmodernism exactly is, what its main characteristics are, and how postmodernism failed (e.g. Storm 2009; ’t Hart 2009; Van den Hemel, Ponte and Vriezen 2009). However, in his collaboration with Yra Van Dijk (and other scholars) in Reconsidering the Postmodern, Vaessens proves to be able to discuss the failure of postmodernism in more detail.

In the introduction to the book, Vaessens and Van Dijk argue – in accordance with Vaessens’ argument in The Revenge of the Novel – that postmodernism reacted against the theories that were embedded in the metanarratives central to liberal humanism. “These theories seemed universal in scope, but postmodernism revealed them to be ideological constructs that needed interpretation and deconstruction. Values are not universal, but context bound” (9). In liberal humanism the literary canon was considered to have a universal status, and that the main condition of a literary text was its sincere and authentic approach of its content. “Literature was believed to have a timeless quality in which form and content were one and indivisible” (10). These values such as assumed sincerity and authenticity, but also of self-evident originality and truth, were questioned by postmodernism, as this new approach distrusted any eternal or universal norms as it disregarded historical, social, political, and material contexts of literature and art in general.

As a result, postmodern literature attempted to deconstruct the text by means of experimenting with its form and content. This is also argued by K.D. Beekman and G.

The Crisis of Literature in The Netherlands: Questions of Value, Use, Autonomy, and Engagement