Ok! I finally got through the Jameson. I would just like to echo KF's plea that we should NOT ever, under any circumstance, emulate Jameson's writing style. Yuck. That said, I do feel as though Jameson brings up some interesting issues revolving around the "Postmodern" that were especially alluring, namely explorations of the term that involved architecture.
Something in the tangible nature of architecture--and the careful deliberation with which architecture MUST executed--really solidified many of Jameson's concepts about the Postmodern dilemma for me. Through the lens of architecture, I also grasped how he used the terms "nostalgia," "pastiche," and the "waning of affect" (although this last one seems a bit contradictory to me for reasons I'll elaborate on in a minute).
I didn't think Jameson's use of "nostalgia" was spot on (even he admits this) because it is devoid of the sadness that typically accompanies the term. Instead--as seen through architectural examples--Jameson employs the term to mean something of a playful quotation of past styles, which are thrown together with gusto. In essence, it is the "pastness" that triumphs, and it doesn't matter how many references are chocked into one building. By defining "nostalgia" (which really is not a good name for this term, as stated above) in these ways, Jameson captures a characteristic of Postmodernism that, at least for me, seems to be present in many aesthetic presentations of the concept.
From this hollowed-out representation of history through "pastness," Jameson contends that a "pseudohistorical depth" and collection of "aesthetic styles displace 'real' history." I am not 100% sure I agree with this generalization, and I would love to tease it out a bit more. (Page 20)
The most problematic aspect of the whole architecture illustration for me was Jameson's insertion of the "waning of affect" as a trait of Postmodernism. True, it seems as though the age in which he writes is more focused on the mechanical nature of reproduction (a la Benjamin) and less so on the individual genius (and brushstroke) of past modernist eras. However, I do see architect as being fully infused with affect/tell-tale signs of individuality in the postmodern! For example, the Vanna Venturi House (http://www.vsba.com/projects/fla_archive/10.html, designed by Robert Venturi, who is mentioned by Jameson) is most definitely the distinctive work on Venturi. And his style is easily distinguished from other architects by way of handfuls of features, of "individual brushstrokes," if you will.
In closing, I really was happy with the use of architectural models to describe the Postmodern condition. I do not feel it is because architecture is more heavily tied to the economic structure, as Jameson proposes, but rather, as I said above, that architecture requires so much thought and intent that is serves as a beautiful and thoughtful testament to theory of the age.