Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugen 2023

Postmodernism and its Impact on Comparative Literature
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

Postmodernism Made a Mess of Comparative Literature—and That’s Why It Matters

You can smell postmodernism before you see it. It's got that hazy, over-intellectualized perfume—like a grad seminar where no one makes eye contact and someone’s quoting Derrida to win a breakup. And still, despite the eye-rolls and the “I’m-so-over-it” vibes, postmodernism left an unmistakable thumbprint on comparative literature. Not just a thumbprint—more like greasy fingerprints all over the glass: smudged, nonlinear, inconvenient, weirdly intimate. And we’re still squinting through it, trying to make out the shape of what we’re even reading.

Comparative lit used to be a quieter affair. The whole project leaned on a fantasy of control: align texts from different countries, analyze the structural rhymes, write a paper that makes you sound like a UNESCO ambassador. But then postmodernism kicked the door in like a drunk friend at 2 a.m. who wants to talk about how nothing is real and also, by the way, the narrative you love is a simulation built from colonial guilt and Freud’s discarded laundry. Suddenly, literature wasn’t about stories anymore—it was about systems, signs, infinite regress, self-consuming irony.

And yet, here’s the real kicker: postmodernism needed comparative literature just as much as the field needed the shake-up. Like a chaotic friendship where one is always borrowing rent money and the other secretly loves the drama.

The thing is, nobody reads just for meaning anymore—not in a world with infinite tabs open and four different translation theories playing tag in your head. So when postmodern lit did its cute little death-of-the-author striptease, comparative lit was right there in the front row, waving dollar bills made of marginalia.

Because how else are we supposed to process the wild fact that Don Quixote, The Tale of Genji, and Beloved all exist in the same literary multiverse? The old model—“let’s compare themes across national literatures”—felt thin. Like trying to diagnose a language using only its vowels. But once postmodernism got its claws in, the questions got weirder, slipperier, more fun: What if this isn’t about influence but echo? What if Borges is talking to Calvino across timezones, and their language isn’t even words, it’s labyrinths?

Postmodernism made it okay—actually, made it necessary—to read texts against their own intentions. Comparative lit, in turn, took this toolkit and ran wild: intertextuality as border-crossing. Fragmentation as resistance. Metafiction as the realest realism in a world that doesn’t want to be real at all.

But let’s pause here. Because this isn’t a victory lap. This is more like rummaging through a thrift store trying to figure out whether the thing you’re holding is vintage or just trash. Postmodernism did some real damage too—especially when it came to voice, emotion, and, you know, actually caring about people. There’s a reason everyone started side-eyeing postmodern lit around the time David Foster Wallace started publishing footnotes longer than actual chapters. The vibe was less “shared human condition” and more “look at me disassemble the shared human condition with surgical precision and zero warmth.”

Comparative literature, which at its best is a beautifully nosy field—“what are they saying over there, and why does it give me chills?”—got caught in the trap of abstract purity. Suddenly, texts were only interesting if they were broken. And god forbid a novel try to mean something sincere across cultures. That was gauche. Sentimental. Colonial, even.

It’s the same posture you see on certain parts of literary Twitter: if you love a book too much, you’re missing the point. If it made you cry, it’s probably lowbrow. If it reminded you of your own country or language or god forbid mother, then it’s just perpetuating ideological hegemony. Ugh.

But what postmodernism did give us, through all its cynical brilliance, is a kind of permission. To mistrust. To wander. To admit we don’t know where one text ends and another begins. Comparative literature absorbed this paranoia and turned it into methodology. You start seeing novels as palimpsests—bleeding into each other, rewritten across cultures like a game of telephone played by ghosts.

Try reading One Hundred Years of Solitude after Faulkner. Or Pale Fire after The Tale of Genji. Or Orlando after Proust—wait, no, that one might actually cause time to fold in on itself. The point is, comparison became less about diplomacy and more about interference. Genre interference. Linguistic interference. Emotional interference. You’re not just comparing; you’re contaminating.

And that’s thrilling. Because contamination is real. It’s how culture works. Nobody reads in a vacuum—especially not now, when you can flip between an Icelandic saga and a TikTok poem in under six seconds. If postmodernism was obsessed with surfaces, comparative literature took that obsession and asked: what else is on this surface? Whose fingerprints are here? Whose absence feels like presence?

Still, you can’t live on theory alone. Eventually, you want something warm-blooded. You want comparative literature to matter not just to your ideas, but to your body. That’s where postmodernism starts to break down—too much head, not enough guts.

What’s coming next—what’s already here, quietly, awkwardly, beautifully—is a comparative literature that still flirts with postmodern tricks (nonlinearity, metafiction, intertextual chaos), but wants to find emotion again. Not that flat, ironic post-irony of the 2000s. Real emotion. Yearning, grief, hunger, care.

And maybe that’s the real endgame: postmodernism ruined comparative literature in all the ways it needed ruining. Tore out its pretensions, its borders, its smug optimism. But it also forced the field to rebuild, not as a system of comparisons, but as a practice of radical reading. Reading that doesn’t demand clarity or conclusion. Reading that can sit with not knowing. Reading that isn’t afraid to fall in love across languages, even if it gets messy.

So here we are. In the aftermath. With our weird little reading habits and our overloaded digital syllabi. Still haunted by Roland Barthes, still side-eyeing the canon, still trying to figure out what the hell that last sentence in Gravity’s Rainbow meant.

And yet.

Comparative literature today—messy, hybrid, emotionally starved but hungry—is maybe the most honest reflection of the world we live in. Fragmented, contradictory, overstimulated, deeply curious. Postmodernism made that possible. It also made it hell. But that’s literature, isn’t it? A gorgeous, broken translation of the world. Always has been.