This chapter analyses the changing reception of ‘declinism’ and its evolving depiction in British postmodern fiction. Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, there existed a tradition of characterising Britain by its lack of enthusiasm for science, the indifference of government to commerce, and the low status of research and development, industry, and engineering. Numerous political scientists, economists, columnists, and historians drew on ‘decline’ as an interpretative framework despite many disagreements about its meaning, evidence, causes, and remedies. At mid-century, postmodern British writers created analogies between narratives of national decline and stories of individual dissolution. Following the Thatcher administration, they offered nascent critiques of ‘declinism’, presenting it as a discourse rather than historical fact. Finally, late-twentieth-century writers joined the growing ranks of professional historians who sought to debunk ‘declinism’ and caution against nostalgia for a halcyon past that may not have ever existed.

This chapter looks at the work and critical reception of B.S. Johnson (1933-73), focusing on the influence that the development of the critical term postmodernism on his reputation by dividing it into three stages of two decades each: before postmodernism (1960-1980), during postmodernism (1980-2000) and after postmodernism (2000 to present). It argues that Johnson’s career was essentially proto-postmodernist, engaged in a struggle to undermine the realist hegemony of the 1960s, but that the theoretical concerns of postmodern writing were at odds with his own and it was never a term he used or had the opportunity to refute. As a result his work remained unassimilable while postmodernism held sway and only later- with the aid of a biography- could criticism get to grips with Johnson’s double-coded rejection of convention and commitment to his own brand of social realism.