Paul Auster's (Post)modern Chronotopes:

The application of metafictional techniques foregrounds the ontological dominant of postmodern fiction. As McHale argues, questions that are posed in literary postmodernism

In other words, the postmodern novel “confronts the reader with questions about what sort of world is being created at each moment in the text, and who or what in a text they can believe or rely on” (Malpas 24).

Through the application of metafictional techniques and an emphasis on the nature of represented reality, authors in postmodern fiction interrogate the traditional assumption that a novel’s depiction of the world should mirror the reader’s lived reality. In the domain of realist fiction, as Nicol elucidates, “the fictional world is a continuum, with a consistent internal field of reference, meaning that things in the world – from objects to the causal links between events – relate plausibly to each other. But at the same time, sustaining the realist illusion requires that it also point outside this to an external field of reference, namely our world” (“Introduction” 25). In stark contrast, postmodern fiction disrupts the notion that its represented world should mirror the reader’s actual one. This genre is no longer “meant to inform us about reality but to constitute reality – in other words, to create an aesthetic world which exists separately from the real world and does not necessarily correspond to it” (“Introduction” 21). This shift represents a fundamental change in how narrative and reality interact, positioning postmodern fiction not as a reflection of our world but as a self-contained aesthetic realm with its own rules and logic.

The novel’s postmodern qualities engender an “emancipation of the reader of fiction from the conventional and the accustomed, and from chronological sequence, in lieu of the simultaneous and non-synchronous” (Hoffmann 59). This fragmentation of the narrative manifests in both spatial and temporal dimensions, thereby disrupting the text’s linearity and its ontological boundaries. Postmodern novels frequently exhibit characteristics such as “temporal disorder; the erosion of the sense of time; […] a prominence of words as fragmenting material signs; the loose association of ideas; paranoia; and vicious circles, or a blurring of distinctions between logically distinct levels of discourse” (Lewis “Postmodernism” 171). A notable feature of much postmodern fiction is the prioritization of spatial dimensions over temporal ones. This spatialization of depicted realities aids in the diffusion of meanings, thereby accentuating the indeterminacy and elusive essence intrinsic to postmodernism.

Consequently, since “no total or coherent picture emerges, and as all the fragments […] trade on one another while each maintains its own intensity, it becomes impossible to discern primary and secondary organizing principles in these works. Every fragment is equally significant” (D’haen “American Fiction” 222). The postmodern text often comprises an assemblage of fragmented or incomprehensible information, which may be contradictory or misleading, rendering it unfeasible for the reader to ascertain a singular, definitive meaning. The direct correlation between the referent and its signified is obliterated and, “if meaning is derived from the deconstructive interplay of signifiers, then a text can possess an indefinite number of interpretations – no single interpretation holds superiority over another” (Feldman 43). In postmodern fiction, words cease to represent reality; rather, they obscure it, thereby complicating the protagonist’s engagement with their environment. This literary approach, where authors engage in linguistic playfulness, results in novels that are open-ended: their “poetic employment of language and the diversity of narrative viewpoints suggest that any representation of reality and any form of social structure is inherently incomplete” (Nicol “Poetics” 220). Neither the character nor the reader is able to construct or discern a comprehensive understanding of the world or the text.

The openness characteristic of the postmodern novel extends beyond its semiotic aspects, encompassing its structural composition, frequently evidenced by the story’s open-ended conclusion. Barry Lewis argues that “[t]he postmodernist writer is skeptical of the completeness and resolution associated with traditional narratives, and instead prefers to explore alternative methods of structuring a narrative. One such method is the employment of multiple endings, which challenge narrative closure by presenting a variety of potential outcomes for the plot” (“Postmodernism” 174). Given its typical lack of a definitive resolution, postmodern fiction presents readers with the opportunity to either embrace the ending proposed by the author or to conceptualize their own. To put it succinctly, “an open ending appears to be an effective method for subverting teleology” (Szegedy-Maszák 277).

Beyond the previously discussed principles, intertextuality emerges as a critical element in postmodern literature. It “promotes a new vision of meaning, and thus of authorship and reading: a vision resistant to ingrained notions of originality, uniqueness, singularity, and autonomy” (Allen 6). The integration of references to, or excerpts from, other texts broadens the scope of potential narrative interpretations while concurrently complexifying the ontological boundaries within the text. In the realm of postmodern novels, “intertextuality is not just used as one device amongst others, but is foregrounded, displayed, thematized and theorized as a central constructional principle” (Pfister 214).

In the scope of this study, the problematic generic status of postmodern literature assumes paramount importance, as “the term ‘postmodern genre’ is oxymoronic, because postmodernism is not related to anything systematic and thus cannot be pigeonholed” (Kayhan 42). Through the analysis of Paul Auster’s novels, this book seeks to demonstrate how postmodernist literature “constantly plays with generic patterns till their deconstruction” (Cudak 33, translation mine), precipitating a conflict between the reader’s anticipations regarding a specific genre and its manifestation in postmodernism. Nevertheless, it is notable that “[e]ven if mixed, blurred, and chaotic, the characteristics of specific genres are visible in postmodernist texts” (Kayhan 42), albeit in a redefined or renegotiated form. Consequently, the label “a postmodern novel” does not refer to a distinct, well-defined genre as, for instance, a detective story or a road narrative might, since “a postmodern work breaks down boundaries, transgresses genres, and is characterised by incoherence” (Pinedo 88).

2. The Problem of a Genre

Broadly speaking, “[g]enres are precisely those relay-points by which a work assumes a relation with the universe” (Todorov “Fantastic” 8). In essence, aspects such as shared themes, motifs, or plot structures categorize a text within a specific genre and situate it within a literary tradition. Michał Głowiński elucidates that individual genres come with certain reader expectations and that “their horizon may depend on the general qualities of the genre identified and recognised against other genres, as well as on the form it has assumed in a given literary culture” (“Szkice” 57, translation mine). Echoing this perspective on the interplay between genre and its historical context, Andrzej Zgorzelski posits that genres are “characterised by various groups of features depending on the period in which they appear” (“Science Fiction” 296).

In his theorization of genre, Głowiński emphasizes its normative nature. He contends that genre is characterized by a set of directives that delineate “the essence of a generic convention, what differentiates it from other conventions, and what ensures that, in the process of literary communication, it becomes recognisable” (“Szkice” 50, translation mine). These invariable elements comprise specific organizing principles, definitive plot structures, recurrent themes, and the construction of characters. They represent “the fundamental historical premises of the genre which determine its continuity and – simultaneously – presuppose the presence of changes, transformations, variants” (Głowiński “Poetyka” 54–55, translation mine). Therefore, a generic category “is determined not only by the invariant elements. It has a wide realm of possibilities” (Głowiński “Szkice” 52, translation mine), which are defined and limited by a particular historical or literary epoch. In other words, “each literary system is formed not through the peaceful interaction of all its factors, but rather through the priority – the foregrounding – of one factor (or a group of them) that functionally subordinates and colors the rest. In Russian scholarship, this factor has come to be called the ‘dominant.’”² (Tynianov 77).