Constructing postmodernism with incredulity to metanarrative: a comparative perspective on McHale’s and Hutcheon’s postmodern poetics

With the postmodern incredulity to the legitimacy of metanarrative, how should we construct a totalizing, “better” theory about postmodernism? Focusing on this paradoxical concern, this article scrutinizes Brian McHale’s and Linda Hutcheon’s different constructions of postmodern poetics with a comparative perspective to expose their respective strong points and drawbacks. The criteria of self-consistency, inner coherence, scope, productiveness and interest, proposed by McHale, are carefully examined to prove their effectiveness as good, but not the absolute, standards of judgment for preferring one construction over the other. Since postmodernism is but a discursive artifact, rather than a real-world object with a clear boundary, literary constructions about postmodernism can only be pluralist, little narratives; there is no true/wrong distinction between them, and each will justify its values, usefulness and interest in its own ways. Comparatively, McHale’s postmodern poetics is more formalist, while Hutcheon’s more cultural and political, but their approaches, viewpoints and interests can be well complementary.