Metamodernism or Metamodernity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript “Metamodernism or Metamodernity”, the author sets out to challenge the paradigmatic cultural periodization of modernity and particularly questions the aptness of postmodernism as the periodic concept describing late 20^th century culture. Through exploring exemplary cultural products, the author attempts to describe a metamodern structure of feeling in contemporary culture. Moreover, they suggest that metamodernism has been at least a parallel structure of feeling alongside postmodernism since the mid to late 20^th century and could even be considered the primary cultural sensibility after modernism.

For the most part, the manuscript is well written, and the language is reasonably clear. The subject matter, although quite expansive, fits the aims and scope of Arts, as most of the examples explored by the author belong to the visual arts. The author brings up several interesting questions that deserve scholarly attention. First of all, the question already alluded to in the manuscript’s title – whether we should use the term metamodernism or metamodernity when referring to the contemporary cultural period – is reasonable and deserves consideration. Secondly, the notion that emergent metamodernist features can be found in late 20^th century culture is an interesting one, and the author points out some promising examples in this regard, such as David Fincher’s film Fight Club – while others are mentioned without any clear justification, such as Umberto Eco’s novel Name of the Rose (see page 12, lines 593-610). Thirdly, the author makes some interesting remarks about internet culture and their main example, the KFConsole, would make an interesting case study in the materiality of meme humour – although I find the author’s claim that it represents the “commodification of the metamodernist sensibility” somewhat unconvincing.

As a scholarly article, however, I’m afraid the manuscript has several flaws that, at this point, seem fatal. Firstly, the manuscript is very long. Although Arts doesn’t have length restrictions of manuscripts, I think the reviewed manuscript could be much more focused and concise. In fact, as I point out in the previous paragraph, the manuscript contains at least three separate questions that could be explored by themselves in separate articles. Secondly, due the scarce use of scholarly sources, the manuscript reads more like an essay than a scholarly article. This is particularly problematic as the author is making a very bold claim that the paradigmatic understanding of postmodernism is “flawed” (line 70) or “a fallacy” (line 538). While I commend the author on the audacity of this claim, it should be backed up by a robust engagement with previous research and theories of postmodernism. There is almost none of this in the manuscript. For example, Fredric Jameson, one of the most prominent theorists of postmodernism, is mentioned only in passing on pages 12 and 19 – even though, as the author on page 12 points out, Jameson’s theory lays the foundation for Vermeulen and van den Akker’s theory of metamodernism. In his seminal work, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Jameson is attempting the very thing the author criticizes: a periodization of postmodernism (or postmodernity, as Jameson has later amended his key concept). Yet his theory receives no real consideration, and the same is true for other prominent postmodern theorists mentioned by the author, such as Baudrillard or Lyotard. Clearly, the author cannot be expected to go head-to-head with all the big names of postmodernism, but the real problem is, they do not make clear what position on postmodernism they are criticizing. Instead, the author refers to an “intuitive” (line 38) understanding of modernism and postmodernism or mentions an anonymous “we” that “shies away from theorizing” (line 57). This seems like a rhetorical trick to bypass serious dialogue with theory and makes the sweeping claim about the “failing of the postmodern” (line 44) rather unconvincing. This alone makes it hard to support the publication of this manuscript.

Regrettably, the author’s disengagement with theory is to a large extent also true with regards to metamodernism. In their definition of metamodernism, the author mostly relies on a 1975 article by Mas’ud Zavarzadeh, who finds the concept of postmodernism to broad and tries to define more precise categories of (then) contemporary literature, one of them being metamodernism. It is somewhat unclear why the author considers Zavarzadeh’s definition of metamodernism (a concept that Zavarzadeh actually mentions only thrice in his article) so relevant today, that it not only surpasses most present concepts of metamodernism, but also overthrows the paradigmatic periodization of late 20^th century culture and postmodernism. The author picks up Zavarzadeh’s notion of a post-absurd world (line 401) and takes it as their lodestar for understanding contemporary culture as fundamentally absurd. Actually, it seems that Zavarzadeh is here referring to a prototypically postmodern dead-pan attitude towards the fantastic, what Brian McHale calls a “rhetoric of banality”. To me it seems that what the author ends up doing in the manuscript is that they define metamodernism as having features that are conventionally considered to be postmodern, and then proceed to claim that because metamodernism so well fits the description of late twentieth century culture, postmodernism must have been a theoretical fallacy. While contemporary theorists of metamodernism, first and foremost van den Akker and Vermeulen, are mentioned, no substantial attempt to compare and contrast their notion of metamodernism with the one promoted by the author is made. A key conceptual problem is that the author does not seem to be familiar with Raymond William’s original theory regarding structures of feeling, which would provide the author with a more nuanced approach to analysing the transitions between periods. Moreover, whereas I agree with the author that there is some confusion between the terms metamodernism and metamodernity, this notion is perhaps not as novel as the author thinks. In the manuscript, they describe doing a Google search on the term “metamodernity” and finding only one relevant result, Lene Rachel Andersen’s programmatic book, in the first page of the search results. However, had the author done the same search using Google Scholar, they would have found quite a few scholarly articles, essays, or papers mentioning the concept – none of which the author refers to.

All in all, it seems clear to me that the manuscript at hand is not ready for publication. It would take a considerable amount of research by the author to convincingly challenge previous research on postmodernism and engage with current research on metamodernism. Moreover, I urge the author to reconsider their methodological position that favours intuition over interpretation (lines 101-104). That said, I encourage the author to continue their line of inquiry with, at least initially, a less ambitious argument, as many of the questions they raise and the examples they analyse are very interesting and show an affinity for understanding (dare I say interpreting?) contemporary culture.

Author Response

In response to Reviewer #1 (30 Jun 2022)

 

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewer for their careful and in-depth attention to my work. Second, I will try to defend my positions here, instead of simply referring to edits in the manuscript, because I think this exchange will enrich the meaning through paratextual support.

The most prominent problem and perhaps the most indicative of my intentions is the length of the article – as pointed out by the line – “the manuscript contains at least three separate questions that could be explored by themselves in separate articles”. While I do agree that several topics are deserving of specific attention, my intent is to steer the debate towards an examination of broader categories. It is my firm belief that we should attempt to theorize such notions by exploring the interconnectedness and shared underpinnings of many phenomena and not necessarily the things by themselves.

My methodology results in the “essayistic” nature of the text. I am aware that this might be a slightly unorthodox approach for such an article, but it is also an intended rhetoric behavior. In addition, I model my examinations after existing literature, published in journals – including, but not limited to, Vermeulen and van den Akker who self-describe their work (2010) as an essay, even if it is rigorously referenced, and Zavarzadeh’s (1975) whose text reads as such, due to his low engagement with previous theory and high focus on exemplifying the contemporaneous actuality through non-scientific quotations. I am applying a similar logic through my engagement with cultural manifestations – from the KFConsole and internet behavior, psychological literacy and, most importantly, art. As a consequence of this rationale, I do not engage with interpretation of single works of art, and I maintain that they cannot be indicative of a larger sensibility by themselves. A position of mine, that might have further contextualized the logic behind this, is that I consider culture as a vector striving towards something, an almost teleological explanation of sorts. The direction of this vector is formed less by the individual intentions, or indeed, ruminations of man, and more by a bigger sustained direction, a totality of all cultural production – be it ideas, art, practical objects or empirical knowledge. In that sense, a personal viewpoint cannot be taken as an example, it has to be thought of as a part whole. The best way to try and pinpoint the direction is by examining a shared sensibility. However, this position in itself, being purely rational, would have seemed unsupported and haphazardly included, had I dealt with in in this manuscript – it needs a careful examination of many ideas after Kant’s teleology up to Latour’s “new cosmology”. That is why I rely, after van den Akker and Vermeulen, on Raymond Williams’ “structure of feeling” – it is the closest defined notion to what I have in mind. I just argue that the present one is a result of a relatively long maturation. Postmodernism, to me, is a less grandiose part of this process than previously thought.        

In addition, I think it unwise to delve too deep into separate instances of theory, because my work is not a critique of it, rather it is a critique of its inherent sensibility’s indiscriminate application to culture as a whole. I have outlined this postmodernist sensibility as skeptical (Lyotard) and even nihilistic (Baudrillard) in theory and as, at least, ironic and visibly supercilious toward modernist sensibility in the arts (represented by instances of conceptual art, minimalism, pop art, etcetera). On the other hand, I have not engaged with Jameson, because he is explicitly understood as the basis for Vermeulen and van den Akker’s notion in his capacity as the main theorist of the postmodern(ist) condition; and implicitly undermined by my position that postmodernist sensibility was only a brief reaction to the emerging era. In order to clarify this, I have added a note (16), discussing one of Jameson’s examples of postmodernist sensibility – Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes – which is a succinct, if oversimplified, diagnosis of his viewpoint. My focus is the permeating dissatisfaction with its contemporary culture, irrespective of the chosen rational system behind it, that is characteristic of postmodernist theory. Weather it is elegantly phrased, careful and nuanced as it is in Lyotard and Jameson, or is visibly and loudly proclaimed by Baudrillard, it is palpably present. It is a distinct sensibility referring to a certain subtype of culture.  All of this was more of a reactionary state, and it does not accurately represent the so-called postmodernity, in my opinion.

The bridge between Zavarzadeh’s metamodern narrative and Vermeulen and van den Akker’s metamodernism is built on the post-absurd condition and on people’s perception of it. While the former sees the new approaches to storytelling necessitated by it, Vermeulen and van den Akker observe how it is being resolved currently by a renewed hope, a return to emotional affect and sincerity. In this development we can observe the coming of a new era and the acclimatization of people to it. The only significant observation that I add to Vermeulen and van den Akker, without disputing their position, is that this particular sensibility has been parallel to the postmodernist one, if less widely accepted in the beginning. It was obscured by the domination of postmodernist theory. Steered by reading and accepting this theory, without reflecting on its almost judgmental bias, we (in the sense of a nebulous shared notion) mistakenly consider this parallel sensibility to be postmodernist, when it is in fact far closer to the metamodernism of today. It is not that metamodernism has “features that are conventionally considered to be postmodern” – that would not be contrary to any definition (intuitive or otherwise) of either postmodernism or metamodernism. The problem is that these features are at odds with the sensibility of postmodernism (as per Jameson, if you will)  – a fact that is especially evident in art – in movements like Land art, Arte povera, artists like Anselm Kiefer and Rachel Whiteread, earlier movies like Wings of Desire or later ones like Fight Club. We can consider these examples as modernism after postmodernism, or as modernism mixed with postmodernism, or in the case of Fight Club – true metamodernism, because of its heavily postmodernist features, combined with a return to sincerity and emotional affect. In the interest of exploring a bigger category, and outlining a vector of culture, I find metamodernism an apt descriptor of all of them. They are driven by a very similar sensibility, modulated in effect primarily by our acceptance of the post-absurd condition. Even if we consider the possible delineation between metaphysics and metairony, we will find that both approaches work towards expressing the needs of a post-absurd condition – they are both leaps towards something.  

I concur that McHale’s “rhetoric of contrastive banality” deals with a phenomenon that is connected to Zavarzadeh’s concept of a narrative that cannot be interpreted. This connection is reflective of a progression of the absurd, however. McHale cites Camus’ opinion on Kafka “We shall never be sufficiently amazed about this lack of amazement”. McHale’s concept deals with a character’s (non)reaction to extraordinary events in the narrative – and in turn the sharpened feeling of strangeness within the readers. Zavarzadeh is not concerned with this. He explores the modes of creating the extraordinary itself – which can no longer be extraordinary in the same sense as before, because the world as a whole is registering the absurd in the everyday. The narrative cannot simply be absurd, because the world is (more) absurd, the actuality seems more fictitious than fiction. The new narrative has to go beyond the old fictive model – it has to be even stranger as a form in order to gain epistemic value. This can be accomplished through metafiction or nonfiction, through blurring of the lines between the real and the imagined, between fact and fiction. It has to reflect the post-absurd condition where things are neither meaningful nor meaningless and go beyond the interpretive model – it has to be as reality is, while still remaining art.

I have tried to reflect on this change of authorial sensibility when I refer to the absurd of before and the absurd of today. If before the absurd was a conclusion that had to be reached, or commented on, in the fictive modes that Zavarzadeh discusses it is an indisputable fact of life – a post-absurd. I propose that this condition has not significantly changed since Zavarzadeh published his work in 1975. It has only strengthened. 

Lastly, I have explicitly included the results of a simple Google search, instead of a Google Scholar one, because I am interested in the broadest possible representation of all the searched terminology. I am not concerned with single instances of scholarly or other thought, but rather in exemplifying the solidification of notions. I find that the cumulative and popularity based algorithms of a simple search are indicative of the formation of shared notions of big categories both inside and outside of academic circles. Thus, including a Google Scholar-generated list of results for “metamodernity” in my examinations in that part would have been counterproductive to my point. I have explored them, however, and I find that only three of the results on the first page (not that page number has quite the same significance when it comes to that platform) are tangential to my work here. The first is a bachelor’s thesis dealing with literature titled Sure, Everything is Ending… But Not Yet: An Aesthetics of Trust for Metamodernity (Tan Jia Hui Julia 2019), regrettably, with restricted access. The second is a master’s thesis on a Bulgarian media collective Mediating Metamodernity in Bulgarian Cultural Production: An Exploratory Case Study of Klaxon Press Collective (Ellen Terry Von Essen 2015), which situates said Bulgarian media collective as an example of metamodernism transcending the dichotomy of modernism and postmodernism in a (g)local context. The third is a strictly philosophical article titled Back to the Future: Reconstructive Tensions in Contemporary Post-critical Metamodernity (Michael Dorland 1986), which mentions the word “metamodernity” only in the title, and the word “metamodernist” in the last paragraph. I have not included them in the manuscript, because I do not consider them to contain any positions on metamodernity as a concept, which are significantly affirming or contradictory to mine. The rest deal with disciplines I do not feel competent to discuss – politics, economics and archeology. I do not claim that my notion of metamodernity is new, nor unique, but I consider it an interesting perspective on the dichotomy of era and aesthetical manifestation. Additionally, I think that it examines the relatively less-explored issue of intuiting the sensibility behind any given aesthetic paradigm.     

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a lucidly written article, which introduces several valid observations about cultural categories such as modernism / postmodernism / metamodernism, issues of periodisation, metamodern culture, etctera, and diverges from the common approach to mapping such categories due to its more intuitive approach. Overall, this is a useful contribution to the debate about metamodernism, as it both builds on existing theory (Vermeulen & Van den Akker mainly) and attempts to go beyond that by focussing on a more intuitive reading of this concept. The conceptualisation of Postmodernism as a subdivision of Modernism is not new, but in the discussion about metamodernism as a theoretical and cultural category this is enlightening. There are few weaker points, though:

- The author occasionally sweeps over statements that need elaboration (“from the failing of the postmodern itself” / “which theory seems to agree has ended”) and poses concepts without sufficiently substantiating them. For instance, phrases such as "the metamodern sensibility" and "metamodernity" are used before the author contextualises them, although it becomes more clear later on in the article what the author refers to. Due to the intuitive approach that the author takes, at times the article borders on speculation. The author explains their approach as follows: "Instead, I offer a multitude of examples with little context but enough similarities to support the idea of a shared aesthetic." However, in order for the arguments to be validated, they occasionally do need more context. For instance, the author defines the concept of meta-irony in eight lines without referring to sources, whereas irony is a hotly debated topic in scholarly analyses of metamodernism.

- The framework of metamodern theory that is used mostly relies on Vermeulen & Van den Akker, especially "Notes on Metamodernism" (2010). Although this is a valid choice, the intention of that article was to open up the debate and not offer fixed definitions, for instance. Consequently, there are a variety of different approaches to the theoretical and cultural interpretation of metamodernism, and the author could have incorporated some of these - sometimes opposing - views. There are also multiple umbrella terms used to describe this cultural logic: metamodernism is one of many used by academics (to name just a few: neo-modernism; new sincerity; digimodernism, etc). The author does not explain why they chose metamodernism, nor do they explain the wider context in which the term is used and, at times, discarded.

- The works cited list is relatively brief, and various texts are not actively used in the article itself, which relies less on a thorough theoretical framework and more on an intuitive reading of metamodernism.

-  At times the use of language is perhaps less formal than expected (“Also to pose the question on whether the term “metamodernity” is applicable to this new age while also giving my perspective”): if this suits the journal, it is fine, of course; otherwise minor revisions could be done.

- This is a very minor point, but I would rephrase the final lines: "Had it not been for metamodernist sensibility, we would not have had hope. We would have been truly postmodern.” The author spent part of the article on diminishing the role of postmodernism as a cultural category, and so it seems contradictory to end the paper by reclaiming it somewhat.

 

Author Response

In response to Reviewer #2 (12 Jul 2022)

 

I would like to thank the reviewer for their careful reading and constructive criticism of my work. I agree with most of their recommendations and I think they are in the best interest of the text.

I will go over their points in order:

- I have added some references and examples to contextualize the statement about the end of postmodernism (n2). As per the reviewer’s opinion that their meaning is revealed through the text, I have not edited the structure of the text or usage of “metamodernist sensibility” and “metamodernity”. I have paid specific attention to the concept of meta-irony in-text – with added references to both recent online videos and articles, and its oldest (to my knowledge) stated usage by an artist – Marcel Duchamp. Additionally, I added an explanation of an alternative meaning, which is often conflated with post-irony.

- I do explain why I have chosen metamodernism in the original manuscript: “The designation of names to these phenomena in the broad cultural sense and in the arts is a result of finding a thread within theory that seemed to me to be closest to my intuition and is also well supported by reason – there is a clear bridge in aesthetics from Zavarzadeh to van den Akker and Vermeulen.” (Introduction para. 4) and I explore this bridge throughout the article. I have given context for several other usages that I did not include in the main body mainly because of their areas of expertise, which do not overlap with mine or, alternatively, because they deserve special attention, which I am unable to give in this context. In note 4 (previously 3) I have mentioned Jason Ananda Josephson Storm’s metatheory of metamodernism (2021), which deals with philosophy. In note 11 (prev. 10) I have tried to outline the direction of thought in the books by Andersen (2019) and Freinacht (2017 & 2019), which deal with social and political aspects of metamodern(ist) sensibility and metamodernity. In note 19 (prev. 17) I refer to Cooper (2018) and his ideas on conspirituality, new age spiritual belief and pop-culture, which are an incredibly interesting facet of metamodernist sensibility, but one that I cannot delve into in this manuscript, because it deserves a lengthy exploration. I have not discussed the intricacies of art theory, but I do mention in-text one of the largest collections of work exploring different facets of metamodernism in art (Van den Akker, Gibbons and Vermeulen 2017).

- It is true that I do not rely on a theoretical framework. That is because I am dealing with sensibility and not theory. Theory itself has a tendency to overlook sensibility, as a grander category, to a certain extent. Because of this I have built my work around exceptions – Vermeulen and van den Akker, because they are interested precisely in sensibility and the cultural notions we find hard to articulate, or in other words, structures of feeling (per Williams). The same is true for Zavarzadeh, who deals with the post-absurd condition as a reason for the emergent new modes of narrative building. I have taken from these authors the closest thing to the intuitive and all-encompassing notions I am seeking. I had originally planned to include the closest similar theory – Epstein's trans-postmodernism, because it shares a sensibility with metamodernism in my opinion. I discarded this idea, however, because I would have had to deal with his classification of “Postmodernism as the Beginning of Postmodernity” (After Post-Modernism Conference 1997) on the one hand, and on the other, because of his Russian literary area of expertise, which I do not feel comfortable going head to head with. Incidentally, he also deals with new sincerity. New sincerity, to me, is just a manifestation of metamodernism, although such a statement deserves a paper on its own – which will have to deal with theory. I have added to note 2 a mention of Supplanting the Postmodern: An Anthology of Writings on the Arts and Culture of the Early 21st Century (Rudrum and Stavris 2015), which offers a collection of alternative theories.

- My language is less formal on purpose, I have the impression that this is acceptable especially in the fields with high degrees of subjectivity. I will of course, amend it, if it is a problem.

- Lastly, although I do appreciate the irony of the final lines (or perhaps because I do), I find them to be highly reflective of my position. Metamodernist sensibility, its desire for something beyond a statement, beyond a conclusion, is the only thing keeping us from the bleakness of postmodernism. Moreover, precisely because this sensibility has always been present, postmodernism could not have been as dominant or as absolute, as it was lauded to be.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The article was a thoughtful and succinct introduction to both a metamodernity (being the affect of metamodernism) and  metamodernism (being the agency of metamodernity) in a way that careful unpacks an interpretive assessment of both through the eyes of an artist and as a critical observation of the field. And as one myself who has engaged in the field since before Notes on Metamoderism was written, much of my own lamenting from the 2005-08 period is now present in world debate that was present in the authors work.

The one aspect about the transition between post post-modernism and metamodernism in the cultural form we know today is that this period of uncertainty is embodied in what the author quite rightfully declares as the field not quite knowing what exactly it or postmodernism actually is, and in this statement, the logic is nested within an element of truth that has surmounted the implications of metamodernity.

The article has rightfully positioned the arguments and assessments into what I term as an 'authentic' debate that might I say, much scholarship in metamodernism is flawed by perspectives not quite understanding their own world view and it is refreshing to see an author earn their street credentials in providing such a thoughtful digression of being assertive enough to comprehend the critical effacement of metamodernity and also metamodernism. This demonstrates that the methodology prescribed in the article and arguments have been well thought out and a well balanced assessment of, especially in section 2 with regards to KFC, what exactly metamodernism can do within its contextual and mechanical arrangements.

My suggestion for the article is to leave the structure of its totality in tact and not to change the batting order at all. I can see that some reviewers who are not artists who think and make work about metamodernism may look for more traditional suggestions of changes but this goes against the spirit of the artist which is, by admission, an artist talking about metamodernism - this is a slightly different approach to the field if, say, the author was not an artist and by this, would not have a multiplicity in their visual mechanical assessments of both which inadvertently oscillates between a process interpretation rather than what we have here being a more relativist approach. In that kind of assessment, I've noted that artist commentating on metamodernism have a clearer understanding of 'what ' it is than without, because as I argue and have argued for years, that the entire point of a metamodernity is to stake the structural claim of contrasted elements oscillating without the need for influence or hierarchy. For very clear reason, its emerging since 2017 that artists commentating on metamodernism have a much clearer idea of how its effect and affect function and also, and perhaps most importantly, have the visual capacity to authenticate in the understanding of how singularity, meta, and relativism play out in a cultural sense. As Charles Jenks was the definitive postmodern art contributor, we see a shifting away in contemporary times to these commentators being artist in clear view. Whether it be from the New Sincerity node of metamodernism in seeking meaningful truth or the relativist node seeking a meta-truth, the contextualisation here is exacerbated from artists learning how to put all of the critical building blocks together and then see how it works or in some cases, doesn't work.

In sum, you've done a great job in completing this paper in its current draft and I recommend this paper for publication without change or amendments. I defend its right to be published without dismantling and I hereby wish the author all the best for future writings and exhibitions about the topic. A good read!

Author Response

To Reviewer #3 (19 Aug 2022)

I would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful perspective on my position and their positive review!

I had quite purposefully included the fact that I am a practicing artist precisely so that the reading of my paper would be informed by it. Although this is anecdotal evidence, in my local cultural environment I have generally noticed a substantial difference in the approaches of purely theoretically oriented authors and authors who happen to be artists as well. Frequently, these two perspectives are even diametrically opposed in their methodology, which I believe is due to the inherent instruments of the fields. I greatly value both approaches and I think they individually offer different perspectives, often informing one another in surprising ways.

The intuitive nature of my assessments is, I believe, supported by my familiarity with the artistic process itself and by experiencing the field from within. Mine is an approach academic circles are yet to embrace fully and I am aware that its somewhat nebulous nature could be perceived as a disadvantage. This review gives me hope that not only are my positions clear, but my process is also shared by others, which is indispensable – both personally for me as a researcher, and from a broader academic standpoint. The legitimization of such a perspective, in my opinion, would be beneficial to theory.      

I noticed that the box for “empirical research” is ticked, which is a very welcome assessment that acknowledges my practical involvement with the field and the expertise that comes with it. I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewer for this especially!

I also concur with the delineation “New Sincerity node of metamodernism in seeking meaningful truth” and “the relativist node seeking a meta-truth”, which is perhaps the best description of these different behaviors that represent the strongest metamodernist impulses.

In other words, I am very glad you liked my article. Thank you for your assessment and well wishes! I hope you continue your work on this topic as well – I suspect I will greatly enjoy it, if I have not already done so.    

Reviewer 4 Report

I really enjoyed your paper! 

Author Response

To Reviewer #4 (14 Aug 2022)

Thank you very much! I am glad you found it to be well constructed and supported. Your review gave me a sense that the more intuitive direction of my writing, that is problematic for some, is valid to others. It was the first one not to demand changes, despite showing in 4^th position now. On its basis, I chose not to implement every previous recommendation.  

On a less formal note, I honestly appreciated the succinct review – it was very informative and uplifting in its simplicity.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I will not reiterate the critical points I made in my first statement, but rather focus on the revisions made in the manuscript.

To be frank, most of the concerns I pointed out remain unaddressed. The largest addition is the discussion on post-irony and meta-irony on pages 6 and 7. This is a welcome addition, although it adds to the already considerable length of the manuscript.

The most significant addition is perhaps the brief discussion on Jameson (misspelled “Jemison” once) in endnote 16. While the points the author makes in the endnote show potential for some interesting dialogue with Jameson’s theory of postmodernism, this addition ultimately feels more like a perfunctory reaction to my critique regarding the manuscript’s lack of theoretical engagement than a than a serious attempt to address it.

As much on the manuscript remains unchanged, all the problems I pointed out in my first review remain. This being the case, I find it hard to change my position on it.

I do appreciate the author’s attempt to clarify their position in their response. More than anything, it indicates that revising the manuscript to include a more robust theoretical discussion and a more focused approach would be well within the capabilities of the author. Yet I feel that the “para-textual support” the author hopes their response will bestow on the manuscript is not enough, but rather the manuscript should be able to stand by itself.

I am sympathetic to what the author is trying to do and by no means do I suggest they should abandon this line of inquiry. That said, I feel that the 10 days or so granted by the journal for major revisions aren’t nearly sufficient to revise this manuscript to the point I would be able to support is publication. My suggestion is that the author makes a more substantial effort to engage with postmodern and metamodern theory and resubmits their manuscript at a later stage and considers dividing this sprawling manuscript into two or three more digestible articles. The author makes many potentially interesting points that get lost as the author tries to bite more than can be chewed in one article.