The Writer at the Far Margin
The Rhetoric of Artistic Ethics in Don DeLillo’s Novels
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6188259 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paula Martín Salván (0000-0001-8514-2670) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 2 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 5062 |
| Publication date | 2007-04-03 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | European Journal of American Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1991-9336 • E-ISSN: 1991-9336 |
| Publisher | OpenEdition (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.4000/ejas.1147 |
| OpenAlex | W2030236005 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 16 |
This article analyzes Don DeLillo’s narrative in terms of the artistic ethics built into it in connection to the ongoing debate on whether postmodernist as a cultural movement is able to work as a tool for critique in capitalist societies. I will take Mao II (1991) as a representative example of the narrative pattern of a writer’s resistance to the established order, a stance that is continuous throughout DeLillo’s work. I will argue that the articulation of an artistic ethics within his novels replicates his often quoted statement that “the writer is the person who stands outside society, independent of affiliation and independent of influence.” Moreover, I will claim that the insistence with which this artistic ethics appears in DeLillo’s work can be related to the growing difficulties to classify it as postmodernist
Aesthetics · Art · Articulation (sociology · Epistemology · Literature · Margin (machine learning · Narrative · Order (exchange · Political science · Resistance (ecology · Sociology · Statement (logic · Computer Science · Contemporary Literature and Criticism · Narrative Theory and Analysis · Postmodernism in Literature and Education · History · Law · Philosophy
Purity and Danger
The Politics of Postmodernism
After the Great Divide
After the Great Divide
The Location of Culture
Can the intellectual still speak? The example of Don DeLillo's Mao II
The Jargon of Authenticity
The Terrorist as Interpreter
Reading Don DeLillo's Mao II as a Commentary on Twentieth-century Politics
| Highly cited | No |
|---|