Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Postmodern, Not Hypermodern: Russell Kirk Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/postmodern_not_hypermodern_russell_kirk#14126 Post contents: Great review. The book sounds interesting, though I would have one criticism with it as described. Given that "post-modern" is generally accepted in common usage (and even most of the postmodernists I know would probably agree with this) as "the unceasing, unrelenting urge to tear down, to destroy, to deconstruct, to smash to bits, any notion of the normative, the decent, and the natural" -- then why does Russello then attempt to identify *that* urge with a new term, "hyper-modern"? That is, if one is going to go about coining new terms, why not coin a new term to describe Kirk's unique synthesis of modernism with tradition, rather than attempt to re-define a word which already has an accepted definition in our vocabulary & usage? Is it because "post-modernism" already has popular cachet? Sent at: 2008 07 24