1. Neocultural narrative and textual desublimation
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between
figure and ground. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a
Foucaultist power relations that includes sexuality as a paradox.
“Class is dead,” says Marx; however, according to Reicher[1] , it is not so much class that is dead, but rather the
collapse, and some would say the dialectic, of class. Textual desublimation
holds that truth may be used to entrench sexism. But a number of discourses
concerning not theory as such, but posttheory exist.
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of substructural
consciousness. Foucault uses the term ‘modern dematerialism’ to denote the role
of the artist as writer. Thus, several narratives concerning capitalist
postcultural theory may be discovered.
Scuglia[2] implies that we have to choose between textual
desublimation and neotextual discourse. But a number of dematerialisms
concerning the economy, and subsequent absurdity, of cultural sexual identity
exist.
The premise of modern dematerialism holds that the law is capable of
significant form, given that language is equal to art. Thus, Lacan uses the
term ‘the postcapitalist paradigm of reality’ to denote a self-falsifying
reality.
If textual desublimation holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. However,
Hubbard[3] implies that we have to choose between
Batailleist `powerful communication’ and cultural theory.
The subject is contextualised into a modern dematerialism that includes
culture as a paradox. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of
Gaiman is the role of the artist as writer.
2. Gaiman and textual desublimation
The main theme of Parry’s[4] analysis of patriarchial
neotextual theory is the rubicon, and some would say the stasis, of
constructivist narrativity. In Stardust, Gaiman affirms capitalist
postcultural theory; in Death: The Time of Your Life, however, he denies
textual desublimation. But if capitalist postcultural theory holds, we have to
choose between modern dematerialism and subcapitalist narrative.
“Sexual identity is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness,” says
Baudrillard; however, according to Sargeant[5] , it is not
so much sexual identity that is part of the fatal flaw of consciousness, but
rather the meaninglessness, and therefore the paradigm, of sexual identity. The
collapse, and subsequent dialectic, of textual desublimation intrinsic to
Gaiman’s Sandman is also evident in Black Orchid. It could be
said that Wilson[6] states that we have to choose between
capitalist postcultural theory and modernist predialectic theory.
If one examines modern dematerialism, one is faced with a choice: either
reject the textual paradigm of discourse or conclude that reality is a product
of the collective unconscious. Any number of structuralisms concerning
capitalist postcultural theory may be found. But Derrida promotes the use of
textual desublimation to read and analyse class.
If modern dematerialism holds, we have to choose between textual
desublimation and neocultural discourse. It could be said that in
Neverwhere, Gaiman reiterates modern dematerialism; in The Books of
Magic he denies capitalist postcultural theory.
Many theories concerning the role of the poet as writer exist. However,
Debord uses the term ‘the textual paradigm of expression’ to denote the
difference between sexual identity and class.
De Selby[7] holds that we have to choose between modern
dematerialism and subsemantic capitalist theory. It could be said that the
primary theme of the works of Gaiman is the collapse, and hence the defining
characteristic, of predialectic sexuality.
If capitalist dematerialism holds, the works of Gaiman are not postmodern.
Thus, the main theme of Drucker’s[8] critique of capitalist
postcultural theory is not, in fact, construction, but preconstruction.
In Stardust, Gaiman affirms modern dematerialism; in Black
Orchid, although, he denies semioticist libertarianism. But Bataille’s
model of modern dematerialism states that language is fundamentally elitist.
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly
generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay,
follow this link.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).
If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair,
where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax
article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.
