Abstract
I speculated in the Introduction whether a venture such as this book should bear the traces of its own history, or erase them in favour of organising all of the material around what is already known by the author to be a conclusion. This is an argument that can be aligned with the structure versus event debate which was also sketched in the Introduction. Rather than set out the problem in these terms, however, I would like to look at the issue as it has been transmuted within the discourse on postmodernism, since it is here that explorations of history and knowledge have been at their most acute. It can also be claimed that the postmodernism versus history debate is actually another form of the immanent versus contingent divide so far described.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Copyright information
© 1996 Steven Earnshaw
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Earnshaw, S. (1996). Well and Truly Fact: Postmodernism and History1. In: The Direction of Literary Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375727_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230375727_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-65568-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37572-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)