I don't think I'm getting it, but what does New Sincerity fights for? Is it just to be genuine and sincere?

I don't think I'm getting it, but what does New Sincerity fights for? Is it just to be genuine and sincere?

it's a meme you dip

It's sincerity as a conscious rejection of irony.
It's also faggotry

It isn't actually a thing

New Sincerity means "fuck you Dad, maybe it's all a joke to you, but like, not everything's funny you know. I mean, forests getting cut down, and people being bombed in Iraq and stuff... I'm putting my foot down and saying that—people should be sincerely, I mean, really angry about things like that! Human beings should be respected! right? Don't be frivolous dad, stop laughing. I really mean it. I'm SERIOUS."

feel good shit for millennials.

Post-post modernism. Mean what you fucking say. Haha fuuuuuugg :D#DDDD

Something for second-rate writers to claim to be part of so they can feel like they're part of a literary era, even though they are hard at work making sure this is a dark age in the history of literature.

New sincerity is just shabby chic for the upper middle class

My theory is that it coddles modern "intellectuals" who don't believe in hard work. All other forms of literature have been iterative, and required a good sense of writing. "New Sincerity" is essentially blog-posting in prose and narrative. It's not a movement because it is just a personality trait. We might as well call it the "Nice Guys Movement," or the movement of the incredibly naïve and self-important. You ever read a blog-post that contained something that wasn't fact-checked or... I mean have you ever read a blog? Yeah, that's how I feel about New Sincerity. I'm writing shit that requires no effort on my part but at least I'll be the first to admit that it's essentially an exercise or an avocation, not a fucking movement.

It's literally defined as being a "partial return" to modernism, which is just shit. Maybe postmodernism is hard to call a movement by some but it does represent a kind of "non-definition" that literature has fallen into after modernism has been partially rejected. This is just basically saying that they are so in love with their 20th century fiction that provides consistency and pleasing structure that they aren't willing to keep up with everyone who's on the so-called "cutting edge." Ain't nothing wrong with calling it modernism again. Many of us (myself included) find it hard to let that movement go. And it's extremely ironic DFW should be called the hero of this movement, because I'm pretty sure that smug fucker would've laughed.

tl;dr call them Modernists

Is Carson McCullers "proto-New-Sincerity?"

My understanding of it for the day to day interaction with the world:

According to the proponents, (postmodern?) irony as reaction is poisonous.
A usage of expressing yourself ironically, and thereby distancing yourself form the content,
is that you protect yourself from being attacked.
But it also takes away meaning.
The idea is that narratives dressed in an ironic fashion have become the standard mindset (at least from the 80's onward).
People tell stories and distance themselves from the content at the same time.
E.g. write a sitcom about people where you don't want to be or represent any of the characters.
But it already starts with groups of friends that only allow for ironic use of emoji,
as opposed to other people, maybe your parents, who use them genuinely.)
In fact, even being vague about it makes dishonesty too easy.
Because in that case,
if I seriously like something and realize everyone else is being ironic,
I may just and pretend I'm being ironic too.
On the other hand, if I ironically like something and realize other people are serious about it,
I may pretend I'm serious as well.

Q: Why is it really so bad?
Q: Is the sitcom thing really a good example? Or have I maybe explained it badly?

What does sincere really mean? I think:
- Avoid cynic thinking/talking and don't even let ironic thinking/talking water down your purpose.
Remark: It doesn't mean you can't enjoy any ironic works or be ironic sometimes.
- Being open about your vulnerabilities.
Caution: You must be capable of owning them, otherwise you just hurt yourself this way.
Remark: In the act of displaying vulnerability without fear,
the negative aspect of you exhibiting the vulnerability is actually reduced.
- Being truthful to other about a) your purpose and b) what you think is the case.
Caution:
Don't make them feel threatened and that you're against them!
Being honest shall not come at the expense of splitting with people.
It's a balance to work on.*
- Jesus is extremely sincere and wouldn't make ironic comments,
but being like Jesus isn't a condition for being sincere.
Being sincere and not unnecessarily rude doesn't at all mean being ``nice''
or having to express your feeling for people all the time.
For example, friendly banter under men is making fun of guys to bond with them
without having to explicitly analyze ones friendship with them.

it's like jacking off with a silicone pussy instead of with your hands 2bh

Hmm. A lot of interesting points.

The first part of your post seems to be explaining insecure writers. Like, even if I'm copying someone else, I'm not pretending. It just supersedes my own opinion that came before. It seems to me that someone who's being reactionary to other literature isn't going to make it.

I think your point about balance sticks it. That's really the key, and I think that the balance of the sincere and ironic has been present in great literature from the beginning. I see "New Sincerity" as essentially being life-negating, and too narrow, and that's why it has failed.

It's the reaction against the excesses of post-modernism, the necessary and inevitable, perhaps, reaction that is nevertheless fully indebted to its forefathers.

Posted before I finished my rant. Anyway, the gist of it is that I hardly see any originality. It's either obnoxiously meta while pretending it isn't, or crude.

I keked out loud
10/10

heavily underrated post

>A usage of expressing yourself ironically, and thereby distancing yourself form the content,
is that you protect yourself from being attacked.
But it also takes away meaning.

But if not claiming it, wouldn't this possibly mean more meaning, vis-a-vis viewer's perspective?

reads like morty from rick and morty

i wouldn't say there's much anger, more of a silent resignation and acceptance of the self as despicable in order to justify humanity as despicable, and then like on top of that a moral code that aligns with existential humanism which is where all the 'sjw' stuff comes from

"New Sincerity" is sticking your head in the sand and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", then declaring you defeated postmodernism.

These, basically. It's not real.

Thank you for the post. You seem to be the only person to address this in a meaningful way.