文学理论课应该是这样的：你和其他所有厌倦的大二学生一起坐在教室后排，穿着紧身牛仔裤，戴着厚框眼镜，穿着讽刺标语的T恤，戴着超大的复古耳机，只等着讲座结束，好点上一支土耳其金烟，听着Wilco乐队的歌去吃午饭。
I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory.
Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco.
That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my iPod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome.
But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blase college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.
这也是我度过这门课的方式：在结构主义、形式主义、性别理论和后殖民主义的讲解中，我一直忙着在我的iPod上切歌，没空去理会资本主义压迫的父权世界秩序与伊坦·弗洛姆有什么关系。
I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory.
Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco.
That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my iPod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome.
But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blase college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.
但是，当我们开始学习后现代主义时，某种东西触动了我的心弦，让我坐直了身子，重新审视那些看似玩世不恭的大学文人——我曾如此自觉地成为其中一员。
I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory.
Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco.
That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my iPod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome.
But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blase college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.
根据我的教科书，定义后现代主义的问题在于它是不可能的。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
困难在于它是如此的……“后”。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
它如此消极地将自己定义为与之前的一切——自然主义、浪漫主义和现代主义的狂野革命——相对立，以至于有时很难看出它到底是什么。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
它否认任何事物可以被清晰地解释，甚至根本无法解释。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
它是戏谑的、超然的、奇怪的，有时对那些不理解它的传统主义者来说是具有威胁性的。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
尽管它起源于战后的西方（这个词创造于1949年），但这见证了其兴起的一代人尚未对后现代态度对于文化或许社会的未来意味着什么提出解释。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
这个主题引起了我的兴趣，因为在一个被死板理论吞噬的课堂上，后现代主义仍然是一本打开的书，对年轻和好奇的人具有诱惑力。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.
但也因为它引起了我的兴趣，因为后现代主义是什么——一个如此“后一切”、如此不愿定义自己的运动——这个问题触及了关于当今政治和流行文化的更大问题，以及坐在我周围的其他在这个后现代世界长大的厌倦的大二学生的问题。
According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.
The difficulty is that it is so …. post.
It defines itself so negatively against what came before it– naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism–that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.
It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.
It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.
Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.
The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.
But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism–what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself–is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.