Abstract The essay proposes to think of the creative subject as an actor in a network, that is, following Bruno Latour, as a »moving target of a vast array of entities swarming toward it« (Latour 2005, 46). It explores what it means to bring a network analysis to lectures on poetics by employing both a structuralist visualization informed by a computational method and a sociological method according to Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). ANT is used to make traceable what with Hugh Kenner is called »elsewhere communities« consisting of spirits and minds along with objects and spaces. This serves to defend a method of criticism that is not oriented towards unearthing deep textual meanings, but which foregrounds the arts’ relatability and potential for provoking association and attachments. Network analysis in the arts and humanities, so goes the argument, has the potential to be much more than a formalist description of connections made. It offers means for detecting the implicit and explicit presences of a variety of different actors in or relating to works of art and challenges us to move beyond established analytical categories such as intertextuality and intermediality by opening the inquiry to a wider diversity of actors and to redefine our understanding of creativity. The article focuses on networks that emerge in lectures in which renowned artists from around the world share with general audiences their views on work processes, motivations to create, and artistic self-understandings. These are known as Poetikvorlesungen in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, but do not have a distinct label outside of the German-speaking literary scene. The article departs from the observation that making connections and forming artistic associations are key components of these lectures as this feature can be found frequently. It first outlines genre characteristics of lectures on the arts with particular focus on networks that such lectures participate in. Emblematic examples are the Frankfurt Lectures on Poetics by the German novelist Daniel Kehlmann (given in 2014) and the Tanner Lectures by the Canadian writer and critic Hugh Kenner (given in 1999). Kehlmann depicts his artistic influences, sources of inspiration, and references to existing contexts by pretending to summon spirits, a rhetorical gesture akin to a necromancy. Kenner calls networks that evolve from making such connections »elsewhere communities«. The essay explores what a network-oriented analysis of this genre could look like by turning to the Norton Lectures by the German filmmaker Wim Wenders (given in 2018). These serve to test two different analytical approaches. The article relies both on network visualization and on tracing of networks according to Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). The article thus offers both a graphic representation of references from Wenders’ lectures and a textual tracing of associations according to the methodology outlined by Latour. An important finding is that net
{"title":"Network Analysis in Literature and the Arts: Rethinking Agency and Creativity","authors":"Gundela Hachmann","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The essay proposes to think of the creative subject as an actor in a network, that is, following Bruno Latour, as a »moving target of a vast array of entities swarming toward it« (Latour 2005, 46). It explores what it means to bring a network analysis to lectures on poetics by employing both a structuralist visualization informed by a computational method and a sociological method according to Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). ANT is used to make traceable what with Hugh Kenner is called »elsewhere communities« consisting of spirits and minds along with objects and spaces. This serves to defend a method of criticism that is not oriented towards unearthing deep textual meanings, but which foregrounds the arts’ relatability and potential for provoking association and attachments. Network analysis in the arts and humanities, so goes the argument, has the potential to be much more than a formalist description of connections made. It offers means for detecting the implicit and explicit presences of a variety of different actors in or relating to works of art and challenges us to move beyond established analytical categories such as intertextuality and intermediality by opening the inquiry to a wider diversity of actors and to redefine our understanding of creativity. The article focuses on networks that emerge in lectures in which renowned artists from around the world share with general audiences their views on work processes, motivations to create, and artistic self-understandings. These are known as Poetikvorlesungen in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, but do not have a distinct label outside of the German-speaking literary scene. The article departs from the observation that making connections and forming artistic associations are key components of these lectures as this feature can be found frequently. It first outlines genre characteristics of lectures on the arts with particular focus on networks that such lectures participate in. Emblematic examples are the Frankfurt Lectures on Poetics by the German novelist Daniel Kehlmann (given in 2014) and the Tanner Lectures by the Canadian writer and critic Hugh Kenner (given in 1999). Kehlmann depicts his artistic influences, sources of inspiration, and references to existing contexts by pretending to summon spirits, a rhetorical gesture akin to a necromancy. Kenner calls networks that evolve from making such connections »elsewhere communities«. The essay explores what a network-oriented analysis of this genre could look like by turning to the Norton Lectures by the German filmmaker Wim Wenders (given in 2018). These serve to test two different analytical approaches. The article relies both on network visualization and on tracing of networks according to Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). The article thus offers both a graphic representation of references from Wenders’ lectures and a textual tracing of associations according to the methodology outlined by Latour. An important finding is that net","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"221 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49634102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In my contribution, I argue that a fruitful integration of computational network analytic methods into literary studies depends on how the ›interaction‹ of two characters in an abstract character network is formalized. I support this hypothesis by using the examples of co-presence, co-reference, and knowledge networks, which I analyze in Heinrich Kleist’s tragedy Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803). I assume that the co-presence of characters can provide the basis for more specific formalizations of interaction. But due to its basal specification of interaction, co-presence networks can only be integrated into rather limited questions of literary studies. I illustrate this circumstance by examining Franco Moretti’s approach in his essay Network Theory, Plot Analysis (2011): How does he connect his network analyses to concepts of literary studies? How does he reflect his methods? Which observational stance does he adopt? How appropriate is his approach to the object of study? And how does he tie his results back to literary theory? Moretti’s explorations show that his network analyses seem to be incompatible with established conceptions of characters – at least partially. Therefore, he demands a new conceptualization of dramatic characters in literary studies. To me, however, it seems to be more productive to put into perspective or enhance – under the auspices of network analysis – existing quantitative aspects of established character presentation (configuration, constellation). I therefore propose two additional formalizations of character interaction to create dramatic networks: co-references and knowledge transfers. Regular co-presence networks, which have widely been tested and discussed among (computational) literary scholars, will serve as a ground of comparison. I illustrate the merits and limitations of co-presence networks on both a single text analysis of Die Familie Schroffenstein and a larger corpus analysis of 587 German-language plays. Cursorily, I present the operationalization of co-references and knowledge transfers. The linguistic concept of co-reference means that two or more linguistic expressions refer to the same entities. A knowledge transfer, in my understanding, is a transmission of new information from at least one literary character to at least one other character. Manual annotations of co-reference chains and knowledge transfers serve as basis for the subsequent network creation. I compare these different manifestations of character interaction in terms of the resulting network visualizations as well as of various mathematical network metrics. The goal is to elicit how useful these two criteria are regarding drama analysis, e. g., the analysis of character properties, and to what extent they can complement, differentiate, or even replace the established co-presence networks. Co-presence, co-reference and knowledge networks reveal different aspects of the characters under consideration, picture different dramati
在我的贡献中，我认为将计算网络分析方法有效地整合到文学研究中取决于如何形式化抽象角色网络中两个角色的“相互作用”。我在海因里希·克莱斯特(Heinrich Kleist)的悲剧《施洛芬斯坦家族》(Die Familie Schroffenstein, 1803)中分析了共同存在、共同参考和知识网络的例子，以此来支持这一假设。我认为角色的共存可以为更具体的互动形式提供基础。但由于其基本的交互规范，共现网络只能整合到相当有限的文学研究问题中。我通过研究佛朗哥·莫雷蒂在他的文章《网络理论，情节分析》(2011)中的方法来说明这种情况:他如何将他的网络分析与文学研究的概念联系起来?他是如何反映他的方法的?他采取了哪种观察立场?他的方法对研究对象是否合适?他是如何将他的研究结果与文学理论联系起来的?莫雷蒂的探索表明，他的网络分析似乎与既定的人物概念不相容——至少部分不相容。因此，他要求在文学研究中重新定义戏剧人物。然而，对我来说，在网络分析的支持下，对已建立的角色表现(配置、星座)的现有定量方面进行透视或增强似乎更有成效。因此，我提出了另外两种角色互动的形式化方法来创造戏剧性的网络:共同引用和知识转移。在(计算)文学学者中广泛测试和讨论的常规共存在网络将作为比较的基础。我在《施洛芬施泰因家族》的单一文本分析和587部德语戏剧的更大语料库分析上说明了共现网络的优点和局限性。粗略地说，我提出了共同参考和知识转移的操作化。共同指称的语言学概念是指两个或两个以上的语言表达指向相同的实体。在我看来，知识转移是将新信息从至少一个文学角色传递给至少另一个角色。人工标注共参考链和知识转移是后续网络创建的基础。我比较了这些角色互动的不同表现形式，根据结果的网络可视化以及各种数学网络指标。我们的目标是引出这两个标准对于戏剧分析有多有用。，对角色属性的分析，以及它们在多大程度上可以补充、区分甚至取代已建立的共同存在网络。共临网络、共指网络和知识网络揭示了人物的不同方面，描绘了不同的戏剧结构，并将不同的人物群体置于网络的中心。因此，这三种抽象的文本表征似乎是相辅相成的。在我的文章中，我表明，应该在(至少)两个层面上讨论各种标准在多大程度上可以融入文学研究的研究问题。首先，有必要问一下，一个特定的标准对自己的研究有多有趣、有多相关、有多翔实，以及它是否与文学研究的术语有关。其次，重要的是要考虑手动注释各自标准的精确度，以及随后自动注释它们的可靠性。
{"title":"Kopräsenz-, Koreferenz- und Wissens-Netzwerke. Kantenkriterien in dramatischen Figurennetzwerken am Beispiel von Kleists Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803)","authors":"Benjamin Krautter","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In my contribution, I argue that a fruitful integration of computational network analytic methods into literary studies depends on how the ›interaction‹ of two characters in an abstract character network is formalized. I support this hypothesis by using the examples of co-presence, co-reference, and knowledge networks, which I analyze in Heinrich Kleist’s tragedy Die Familie Schroffenstein (1803). I assume that the co-presence of characters can provide the basis for more specific formalizations of interaction. But due to its basal specification of interaction, co-presence networks can only be integrated into rather limited questions of literary studies. I illustrate this circumstance by examining Franco Moretti’s approach in his essay Network Theory, Plot Analysis (2011): How does he connect his network analyses to concepts of literary studies? How does he reflect his methods? Which observational stance does he adopt? How appropriate is his approach to the object of study? And how does he tie his results back to literary theory? Moretti’s explorations show that his network analyses seem to be incompatible with established conceptions of characters – at least partially. Therefore, he demands a new conceptualization of dramatic characters in literary studies. To me, however, it seems to be more productive to put into perspective or enhance – under the auspices of network analysis – existing quantitative aspects of established character presentation (configuration, constellation). I therefore propose two additional formalizations of character interaction to create dramatic networks: co-references and knowledge transfers. Regular co-presence networks, which have widely been tested and discussed among (computational) literary scholars, will serve as a ground of comparison. I illustrate the merits and limitations of co-presence networks on both a single text analysis of Die Familie Schroffenstein and a larger corpus analysis of 587 German-language plays. Cursorily, I present the operationalization of co-references and knowledge transfers. The linguistic concept of co-reference means that two or more linguistic expressions refer to the same entities. A knowledge transfer, in my understanding, is a transmission of new information from at least one literary character to at least one other character. Manual annotations of co-reference chains and knowledge transfers serve as basis for the subsequent network creation. I compare these different manifestations of character interaction in terms of the resulting network visualizations as well as of various mathematical network metrics. The goal is to elicit how useful these two criteria are regarding drama analysis, e. g., the analysis of character properties, and to what extent they can complement, differentiate, or even replace the established co-presence networks. Co-presence, co-reference and knowledge networks reveal different aspects of the characters under consideration, picture different dramati","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"261 - 289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46123023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract If, as George E.P. Box puts it, »all models are wrong, but some are useful« (Box in Ahnert et al. 2020, 79), what then, would be the merit and concrete gains of such an ambivalent model in the field of literature? This article stems from a hunch: that the use of the network metaphor to describe children’s literature (in the broad sense as referring to any cultural product developed for children) is not insignificant. Starting from that postulate, the goal of this article is to look beyond the metaphor and explore how the rhizomatic network could serve as a concrete model, supplementing the current toolbox used to study children’s literature. Indeed, many characteristics of the rhizomatic network – namely its unlimited, simplified, non-hierarchical, random-access, and visual nature – lend themselves to a broader and more inclusive conceptualization of children’s literature. Translator study scholar Rebecca Walkowitz makes a strong case for this approach, stating that »[i]n the future, we will need to read comparatively, by which I mean reading across editions and formats and also recognizing that any one edition and format contributes to the work rather than exhausts it« (Walkowitz 2015, unpag.). Concretely, I argue for the use of the rhizomatic network as a visual model of multimodal children’s literature at three levels: 1) a given storyworld as a network of interconnected versions; 2) the context of any given version of the storyworld as a network; and 3) the text (or multimodal ensemble) of any given version of the storyworld as a network of meaning-making resources (modes). I illustrate the network model at these three levels through two case studies: We’re Going on a Bear Hunt (Rosen/Oxenbury 1989) and the Gruffalo (Donaldson/Scheffler 1999). In Cathlena Martin’s words, children’s texts »refuse« to stay confined (Martin 2009, 87), whether it be to one medium, or to one language. As a result, any storyworld of children’s literature can be conceptualized as a network of interconnected works, each of which expands it in a different direction depending on its features. This approach thus emphasizes the multidirectionality of influences between works and the »new set of relations« whereby »something unique is produced« (Cartmell/Whelehan 2010, 22). These new sets of relations involve not only the features of the work, but also its context, which can too be contextualized as a network of interconnected agents and organizations involved in the production and reception of the work. At the level of the multimodal ensemble, the model aims to map out the combinations of modes within any product of children’s literature. Since multimodality is inherently hierarchical, as it consists of modal categories, modes, and sub-modes, I propose a hybrid model (after Ban-Yam 2002) that combines the tree (hierarchy) structure and the rhizome structure (lateral connections). While it is important to keep in mind that the audience experiences meaning as a wh
摘要如果正如George E.P.Box所说，“所有的模型都是错误的，但有些是有用的”（Box in Ahnert et al.2020，79），那么，这种矛盾的模型在文学领域的优点和具体收获是什么？这篇文章源于一种预感：使用网络隐喻来描述儿童文学（广义上指为儿童开发的任何文化产品）并非微不足道。从这一假设出发，本文的目标是超越隐喻，探索根茎网络如何作为一个具体的模型，补充当前用于研究儿童文学的工具箱。事实上，根茎网络的许多特征——即其无限性、简化性、非层次性、随机性和视觉性——有助于对儿童文学进行更广泛、更包容的概念化。翻译家研究学者Rebecca Walkowitz为这种方法提供了有力的论据，她表示“在未来，我们将需要进行比较阅读，我的意思是跨版本和格式阅读，并认识到任何一个版本和格式都有助于工作，而不是耗尽它”（Walkowitz 2015，unpog.），我主张在三个层面上使用根茎网络作为多模式儿童文学的视觉模型：1）给定的故事世界是一个相互关联的版本网络；2） 作为网络的故事世界的任何给定版本的上下文；以及3）作为意义制造资源（模式）网络的故事世界的任何给定版本的文本（或多模式集合）。我通过两个案例研究说明了这三个层面上的网络模型：我们正在进行猎熊（Rosen/Oxenbury 1989）和Gruffalo（Donaldson/Scheffler 1999）。用Cathlena Martin的话来说，儿童文本“拒绝”被限制（Martin 2009，87），无论是一种媒介，还是一种语言。因此，任何儿童文学的故事世界都可以被概念化为一个相互关联的作品网络，每个作品都根据其特点向不同的方向扩展。因此，这种方法强调了作品与“新的关系”之间的影响的多向性，“新的一套关系”产生了“独特的东西”（Cartmell/Whelehan，2010，22）。这些新的关系不仅涉及作品的特征，还涉及作品的背景，也可以将其视为参与作品制作和接收的相互关联的代理人和组织的网络。在多模式集成的层面上，该模型旨在绘制出儿童文学任何产品中的模式组合。由于多模态本质上是层次性的，因为它由模态类别、模态和子模态组成，我提出了一个混合模型（Ban Yam 2002之后），该模型结合了树（层次）结构和根茎结构（横向连接）。尽管重要的是要记住，观众体验到的意义是一个整体，是模式和子模式的协同作用（Sipe 2012），但将这种协同作用分解为其组成部分是一种有用的方式，可以更好地理解儿童文学是如何产生意义的，以及意义是如何通过媒介和/或语言转换重塑的。虽然根茎模型无疑有很多好处，但它也有局限性。首先，根茎的具体表现本质上带有定位偏差，这源于研究人员的背景和关注点。此外，这些视觉效果往往以文本为中心。尽管将信息呈现为网络增加了视觉维度，但在可能的情况下，节点（文本）的内容可以用图像或声音代替，以强调网络表示的多模式和中间维度。然而，使用文本仍然是创建适合学术文章空间和格式的网络表示的最简单、最快、最有效的方法。另一个限制是，可以说，网络并不能帮助消除围绕儿童文学产品所经历的实际转变本质的理论模糊性。 翻译、转导、本地化、改编、戏仿、删节、重写、转写）。我没有提出另一组术语，而是在“互文对话”（Stam 2000）的更广泛背景下，将版本网络置于语境中，并使用克劳斯·坎德尔的翻译类型学（坎德尔用来涵盖改编）来关注版本之间的变化，而不是它们是什么。类型学根据两个参数对翻译进行分类：模式和文化。为此，我建议增加第三个维度，即媒介，以说明新产品的特定可供性及其对多模式集合的影响。这种类型，加上更广泛的生产和接收背景，揭示了新产品的特殊性以及与其他产品的关系。
{"title":"Beyond the Metaphor: Conceptualizing Children’s Literature as (part of) a Rhizomatic Network","authors":"Maureen Hosay","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract If, as George E.P. Box puts it, »all models are wrong, but some are useful« (Box in Ahnert et al. 2020, 79), what then, would be the merit and concrete gains of such an ambivalent model in the field of literature? This article stems from a hunch: that the use of the network metaphor to describe children’s literature (in the broad sense as referring to any cultural product developed for children) is not insignificant. Starting from that postulate, the goal of this article is to look beyond the metaphor and explore how the rhizomatic network could serve as a concrete model, supplementing the current toolbox used to study children’s literature. Indeed, many characteristics of the rhizomatic network – namely its unlimited, simplified, non-hierarchical, random-access, and visual nature – lend themselves to a broader and more inclusive conceptualization of children’s literature. Translator study scholar Rebecca Walkowitz makes a strong case for this approach, stating that »[i]n the future, we will need to read comparatively, by which I mean reading across editions and formats and also recognizing that any one edition and format contributes to the work rather than exhausts it« (Walkowitz 2015, unpag.). Concretely, I argue for the use of the rhizomatic network as a visual model of multimodal children’s literature at three levels: 1) a given storyworld as a network of interconnected versions; 2) the context of any given version of the storyworld as a network; and 3) the text (or multimodal ensemble) of any given version of the storyworld as a network of meaning-making resources (modes). I illustrate the network model at these three levels through two case studies: We’re Going on a Bear Hunt (Rosen/Oxenbury 1989) and the Gruffalo (Donaldson/Scheffler 1999). In Cathlena Martin’s words, children’s texts »refuse« to stay confined (Martin 2009, 87), whether it be to one medium, or to one language. As a result, any storyworld of children’s literature can be conceptualized as a network of interconnected works, each of which expands it in a different direction depending on its features. This approach thus emphasizes the multidirectionality of influences between works and the »new set of relations« whereby »something unique is produced« (Cartmell/Whelehan 2010, 22). These new sets of relations involve not only the features of the work, but also its context, which can too be contextualized as a network of interconnected agents and organizations involved in the production and reception of the work. At the level of the multimodal ensemble, the model aims to map out the combinations of modes within any product of children’s literature. Since multimodality is inherently hierarchical, as it consists of modal categories, modes, and sub-modes, I propose a hybrid model (after Ban-Yam 2002) that combines the tree (hierarchy) structure and the rhizome structure (lateral connections). While it is important to keep in mind that the audience experiences meaning as a wh","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"241 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43035123","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the present essay, I argue that lyric ecopoetry is particularly suited to alter our worldview in favor of a more ecologically-aware stance. In itself this position has been announced by numerous ecocritics, with some doubts as to its adequacy expressed by Timothy Clark in his Ecocriticism on the Edge. Partly in response to his critique, it is here argued that poems do offer a viable way of altering human modes of thinking not by what or how they evoke but by the way in which they register in the reader’s consciousness. To this effect, I depart from the theories of the lyric advanced in the last two decades by the likes of Jonathan Culler, Derek Attridge and the poet Don Patterson, all of whom argue that lyric poetry differs from any other form of linguistic expression in being itself the event it evokes rather than a representation of an event. This is because by dint of being performed by readers, lyric poems compel one to embrace the voices that comprise them as one’s own, as a result helping one interiorize an experience of ultimate otherness. It is this modus of poetry’s existence that makes it a particularly apt literary form for impelling one to appreciate the complexity of and one’s imbrication in the networks of planetary ecosystems. In this way, as I claim further on, poetry may be conceived of as a vehicle for instilling a form of thinking that Bruno Latour has recently theorized as Terrestrial. For him, the Terrestrial is characterized by what he calls the system of engendering, a way of dwelling in the interrelated systems of the Earth that is reciprocally beneficial for human and non-humans. After an overview of Latour’s idea, which is put forward as a potential political platform, and its relation to the extant theories of environmental humanities that emphasize poetry’s role in conjuring the awareness of the intricacy of natural processes, I suggest that lyric poetry offers not only a means of linguistic expression of the interdependence of all elements in any given ecosystem but also constitutes a language capable of swaying human modes of thinking in favor of the Terrestrial.
{"title":"Voicing the Terrestrial: Theory of the Lyric and the Pressures of the Anthropocene","authors":"Wit Píetrzak","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the present essay, I argue that lyric ecopoetry is particularly suited to alter our worldview in favor of a more ecologically-aware stance. In itself this position has been announced by numerous ecocritics, with some doubts as to its adequacy expressed by Timothy Clark in his Ecocriticism on the Edge. Partly in response to his critique, it is here argued that poems do offer a viable way of altering human modes of thinking not by what or how they evoke but by the way in which they register in the reader’s consciousness. To this effect, I depart from the theories of the lyric advanced in the last two decades by the likes of Jonathan Culler, Derek Attridge and the poet Don Patterson, all of whom argue that lyric poetry differs from any other form of linguistic expression in being itself the event it evokes rather than a representation of an event. This is because by dint of being performed by readers, lyric poems compel one to embrace the voices that comprise them as one’s own, as a result helping one interiorize an experience of ultimate otherness. It is this modus of poetry’s existence that makes it a particularly apt literary form for impelling one to appreciate the complexity of and one’s imbrication in the networks of planetary ecosystems. In this way, as I claim further on, poetry may be conceived of as a vehicle for instilling a form of thinking that Bruno Latour has recently theorized as Terrestrial. For him, the Terrestrial is characterized by what he calls the system of engendering, a way of dwelling in the interrelated systems of the Earth that is reciprocally beneficial for human and non-humans. After an overview of Latour’s idea, which is put forward as a potential political platform, and its relation to the extant theories of environmental humanities that emphasize poetry’s role in conjuring the awareness of the intricacy of natural processes, I suggest that lyric poetry offers not only a means of linguistic expression of the interdependence of all elements in any given ecosystem but also constitutes a language capable of swaying human modes of thinking in favor of the Terrestrial.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"290 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47035714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The paper develops ideas for a theory of the transmission of literature, or Literaturvermittlung. It connects a historical with a systematic perspective and focuses mainly on educational institutions and especially school. At the center of the historical analysis is Heinrich Düntzer, an early protagonist of German studies who, from 1855 onwards, publishes a series of reading guides called Erläuterungen zu den deutschen Klassikern. Düntzer’s ideas are repeated, yet modified, by Albert Zipper and his series Erläuterungen zu Meisterwerken der deutschen Literatur, which appears as part of Reclams Universal-Bibliothek between 1896 and 1922. Düntzer and Zipper draw from a European tradition of literary commentary while developing a genre of study guides, or Lektürehilfen, that is still existant and influential today. Although in the long run schools prove to be the primary institutional address of these guides, this is not clear when Düntzer begins his project in 1855 and only becomes obvious in the 1890s, when Zipper publishes first texts. Both authors explicitly address educated readers in general, yet also, e. g., actors. Since literature in German is a new subject in schools in the 19th century, this is not completely surprising. The historical part of the paper takes an additional look at Georg Witkowski’s book Textkritik und Editionstechnik neuerer Schriftwerke from 1924, which is skeptical of written commentary in teaching literature. Düntzer and Zipper both write texts which accompany their series of study guides and explain aims and intended usage. While Düntzer does so in quite some length in 1862, seven years after beginning to publish the Erläuterungen, Zipper adds short opening paragraphs to his first guide in 1896. Both authors are interested in supplying cheap publications to readers of literature. These publications are supposed to explain literary works and their qualities in detail. Düntzer also wants to help readers develop advanced aesthetic judgment. He outlines that the Erläuterungen are supposed to be studied carefully while also reading the literary works. Although an understanding of literature is possible without relying on study guides, these guides, according to Düntzer, provide a comparatively quick access to literature. He also makes clear that his study guides are to provide readers with a coherent text which does not convey information in isolated chunks or jumps from one aspect to another. The rather short introductory paragraphs by Zipper are less ambitious than Düntzer’s, yet also stress the aim to explain literary works in depth. An exemplary analysis of Düntzer’s and Zipper’s study guides on G.E. Lessing’s Nathan der Weise shows strong similarities between the different Erläuterungen. They both present contextual information on the literary work, its creation and background, information on its characters, its language and, most importantly, its plot. At the same time, there are differences when Düntzer comp
{"title":"Theorie und Praxis der Literaturvermittlung. Erläuterungsreihen und Textkommentar bei Heinrich Düntzer, Albert Zipper und Georg Witkowski und ihr Nachklang bis zur Gegenwart","authors":"Sebastian Susteck","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper develops ideas for a theory of the transmission of literature, or Literaturvermittlung. It connects a historical with a systematic perspective and focuses mainly on educational institutions and especially school. At the center of the historical analysis is Heinrich Düntzer, an early protagonist of German studies who, from 1855 onwards, publishes a series of reading guides called Erläuterungen zu den deutschen Klassikern. Düntzer’s ideas are repeated, yet modified, by Albert Zipper and his series Erläuterungen zu Meisterwerken der deutschen Literatur, which appears as part of Reclams Universal-Bibliothek between 1896 and 1922. Düntzer and Zipper draw from a European tradition of literary commentary while developing a genre of study guides, or Lektürehilfen, that is still existant and influential today. Although in the long run schools prove to be the primary institutional address of these guides, this is not clear when Düntzer begins his project in 1855 and only becomes obvious in the 1890s, when Zipper publishes first texts. Both authors explicitly address educated readers in general, yet also, e. g., actors. Since literature in German is a new subject in schools in the 19th century, this is not completely surprising. The historical part of the paper takes an additional look at Georg Witkowski’s book Textkritik und Editionstechnik neuerer Schriftwerke from 1924, which is skeptical of written commentary in teaching literature. Düntzer and Zipper both write texts which accompany their series of study guides and explain aims and intended usage. While Düntzer does so in quite some length in 1862, seven years after beginning to publish the Erläuterungen, Zipper adds short opening paragraphs to his first guide in 1896. Both authors are interested in supplying cheap publications to readers of literature. These publications are supposed to explain literary works and their qualities in detail. Düntzer also wants to help readers develop advanced aesthetic judgment. He outlines that the Erläuterungen are supposed to be studied carefully while also reading the literary works. Although an understanding of literature is possible without relying on study guides, these guides, according to Düntzer, provide a comparatively quick access to literature. He also makes clear that his study guides are to provide readers with a coherent text which does not convey information in isolated chunks or jumps from one aspect to another. The rather short introductory paragraphs by Zipper are less ambitious than Düntzer’s, yet also stress the aim to explain literary works in depth. An exemplary analysis of Düntzer’s and Zipper’s study guides on G.E. Lessing’s Nathan der Weise shows strong similarities between the different Erläuterungen. They both present contextual information on the literary work, its creation and background, information on its characters, its language and, most importantly, its plot. At the same time, there are differences when Düntzer comp","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"193 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48087993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract How ›literary mediation‹ is observed from the perspective of literature is discussed in this paper on the basis of Clemens J. Setz’ Bot. Gespräch ohne Autor. It is described here as a network of multiple operations and interconnections that take up excerpts of what has already been published and combine them with something new, and, at the same time, it is made recognizable as a fundamental moment of literature. What is reconstructed here on the basis of and from an exemplum is systematically relevant. The systematic connections that are of interest here, in turn, can only be made plausible by means of the text. This constellation is theoretically indissoluble. This paper discusses this using both the notion of ›epitext‹ and incorporating the concept of ›mediation‹ unfolded by Bruno Latour. It brings the two together and opens the theoretical territory of ›literary mediation and promotion‹. It follows that mediation is defined as an operation that transforms, that is, not conserves and preserves, transferred into terms of literary mediation: not simply explains and comments, but transforms by inscribing and imprinting itself on what it mediates, is emphasized here. For the understanding of literary mediation, it follows that – instead of being in the service of a literary text conceived as an unchanging entity – it is always modifying and translating it in order to continually bring it forth as something new. While peritexts, however supplementary, constitute compact units, the epitextual perspective brings about their spatial and temporal dispersion. Literature is to be grasped epitextually not as a unity, but as an ensemble or network of different elements, references, and functions that project into a virtually expanded environment of a text. With such a reformulation of the concept of literature, it is stated that epitexts are not attributed to the mediation of literature, but to literature, and that the boundary between these areas is thought to be permeable. The article examines how a text file becomes a printed text and how this shapes the understanding of ›digital literature‹. This also addresses the problem of big data, which requires distant reading procedures and to which Bot. Gespräch ohne Author reacts in a specific way, by capturing context-independent »word distributions« (Piper 2018, 43) to use them for new connectivities. The article reveals the shifts between the possibilities of digitization, its literary adaptations, and a literature oriented to the categories of work, author, and book. It is not concerned with replacing texts designed according to traditional criteria with digital surfaces, but rather with pointing out the untranslatability of one system into the other. An untranslatability, however, that can only be demonstrated in the process of translation, the médiation. By taking up concepts of digital culture and incorporating them by quoting, reflecting, and parodying them, the book, consisting of printed pape
摘要本文在Clemens J.Setz的Bot.Gespräch ohne Autor的基础上，探讨了如何从文学的角度观察文学中介。在这里，它被描述为一个由多种操作和互连组成的网络，这些操作和互连吸收了已经发表的内容的摘录，并将其与新的内容相结合，同时，它也被视为文学的一个基本时刻。在一个例子的基础上和从一个例子中重建的东西是系统相关的。反过来，这里感兴趣的系统联系只能通过文本来变得合理。这个星座在理论上是不可分割的。本文使用›表文本的概念和Bruno Latour提出的›中介的概念对此进行了讨论。它将二者结合在一起，开辟了›文学调解与促进的理论领域。因此，中介被定义为一种转化的操作，也就是说，不是保存和保存，转移到文学中介的术语中：这里强调的不是简单的解释和评论，而是通过将自己刻在中介上并将其压印在中介上来转化。对于文学中介的理解，它不是为被视为不变实体的文学文本服务，而是总是对其进行修改和翻译，以不断地将其作为新的东西呈现出来。虽然周边文本，无论多么补充，都构成了紧凑的单元，但表层视角带来了它们的空间和时间分散。文学不是作为一个整体来理解的，而是作为一个不同元素、参考和功能的集合或网络，投射到文本的虚拟扩展环境中。通过对文学概念的重新表述，可以看出，表文本不是文学的中介，而是文学的中介。这些领域之间的边界被认为是可渗透的。本文探讨了文本文件如何成为印刷文本，以及这如何塑造对›数字文学的理解。这也解决了大数据的问题，大数据需要远程阅读程序，Bot.Gespräch ohne Author以特定的方式做出反应，通过捕捉上下文无关的“单词分布”（Piper 2018，43）将其用于新的连接。这篇文章揭示了数字化的可能性、其文学改编以及面向作品、作者和书籍类别的文学之间的转变。它并不关心用数字表面取代根据传统标准设计的文本，而是指出一个系统到另一个系统的不可翻译性。然而，这种不可译性只能在翻译过程中表现出来，即翻译。这本书采用了数字文化的概念，并通过引用、反思和戏仿将其融入其中，由装订在两个封面之间的印刷纸组成，使它们伪装成参与其塑造的媒介。一方面，它表明，在数字生态中不可能有非数字文学，即使它最终以纸质形式呈现；但另一方面，它也表明，人工智能只能被描述为文本或代码。它可以表明，文学是如何将其中介或与文学中介相关的制度和中介过程置于（文学）审查之下，从而不断地协商其自身的文学性的。在调解与文学概念相遇的地方，它作为一个文学理论范畴也受到了挑战。借助与文学和文学中介之间的区别相对应的概念对旁文本和外文本，以及布鲁诺·拉图尔的›中介概念，不仅作品的类别在可与上下文区分的稳定实体的意义上受到质疑，但与此直接相关的是，作者作为技术操作集体的功能也被追溯。这是一个在数字化手段的支持下具有特殊紧迫性的问题，揭示了文学作为（再）翻译的传统概念，例如将数字数据集转移到印刷书中。
{"title":"Digitale Mittler und literarische Vermittlungen. Clemens J. Setz’ Bot. Gespräch ohne Autor","authors":"N. Binczek","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How ›literary mediation‹ is observed from the perspective of literature is discussed in this paper on the basis of Clemens J. Setz’ Bot. Gespräch ohne Autor. It is described here as a network of multiple operations and interconnections that take up excerpts of what has already been published and combine them with something new, and, at the same time, it is made recognizable as a fundamental moment of literature. What is reconstructed here on the basis of and from an exemplum is systematically relevant. The systematic connections that are of interest here, in turn, can only be made plausible by means of the text. This constellation is theoretically indissoluble. This paper discusses this using both the notion of ›epitext‹ and incorporating the concept of ›mediation‹ unfolded by Bruno Latour. It brings the two together and opens the theoretical territory of ›literary mediation and promotion‹. It follows that mediation is defined as an operation that transforms, that is, not conserves and preserves, transferred into terms of literary mediation: not simply explains and comments, but transforms by inscribing and imprinting itself on what it mediates, is emphasized here. For the understanding of literary mediation, it follows that – instead of being in the service of a literary text conceived as an unchanging entity – it is always modifying and translating it in order to continually bring it forth as something new. While peritexts, however supplementary, constitute compact units, the epitextual perspective brings about their spatial and temporal dispersion. Literature is to be grasped epitextually not as a unity, but as an ensemble or network of different elements, references, and functions that project into a virtually expanded environment of a text. With such a reformulation of the concept of literature, it is stated that epitexts are not attributed to the mediation of literature, but to literature, and that the boundary between these areas is thought to be permeable. The article examines how a text file becomes a printed text and how this shapes the understanding of ›digital literature‹. This also addresses the problem of big data, which requires distant reading procedures and to which Bot. Gespräch ohne Author reacts in a specific way, by capturing context-independent »word distributions« (Piper 2018, 43) to use them for new connectivities. The article reveals the shifts between the possibilities of digitization, its literary adaptations, and a literature oriented to the categories of work, author, and book. It is not concerned with replacing texts designed according to traditional criteria with digital surfaces, but rather with pointing out the untranslatability of one system into the other. An untranslatability, however, that can only be demonstrated in the process of translation, the médiation. By taking up concepts of digital culture and incorporating them by quoting, reflecting, and parodying them, the book, consisting of printed pape","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"38 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47035889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article discusses the position of retelling in literary studies. Retelling does neither play a role in narratology, nor raises further questions for text theory. In the focus of literary didactics retelling is often limited to the pragmatics of use. ›Retelling‹, however, is not a term used in literary studies. Although the term denotes a widespread cultural technique, which is used in schools and is accordingly also discussed in the didactics of literature, it has not yet been able to be acknowledged in the discipline. The greatest obstacle standing in the way of a conceptual version of retelling probably lies in its distinction from narrative. Narratology has not found any specifics in retelling that fundamentally distinguish it from narration. And the tools of trans-textuality and intertextuality developed especially in structuralism to describe textual relations are available for narrative texts anyway. Thus, literary studies already apply theories and tools that are useful for analyses of retelling: narratology, text theory and classification of a second-order literature, the theory of trans-textuality and intertextuality, and material history, as well as research on media transposition and adaptation. Defining retelling as a second-order narrative, or meta-narrative, inevitably raises the question of what is being repeated at all, and how, by means of narrative. Medieval studies particularly emphasize the aspect of repetition (›re-telling‹), which precedes a specific mediality of narration. Retelling as a variety of repetition neither presupposes a pre-text nor requires that a narrative be repeated. Rather, in retelling, the narrative procedure enters into the service of repetition. On the one hand, it is a variety of repetition, but not every repetition is also a narrative. On the other hand, one and the same text can be described from the point of view of narration or that of repetition. Literary studies that focus on the uses of retelling will pay attention to the varieties of repetition and should look at the relationship between the act of narration and repetition. Obviously, in retelling, the modes and ways, but also the degrees of reference to the pre-text can vary, so that it remains to be discussed which varieties of reference count as valid repetitions. In addition, there is the fundamental question of what falls under the concept of narrative and what components constitute it. Is narrative to be understood as a turning back with linguistic means? As an organization of events, which in turn are to be understood as displacements of actors across semantic or even physical boundaries? As little as a repetition by means of narration is linked to a preceding narrative text, it is equally questionable where and how a boundary between narrative and non-narrative representation could be drawn. In this respect, the following discussion of retelling touches, on the one hand, on the distinction between describing and narrating, w
{"title":"Nacherzählen. Versuch über eine Kulturtechnik","authors":"A. Schäfer","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article discusses the position of retelling in literary studies. Retelling does neither play a role in narratology, nor raises further questions for text theory. In the focus of literary didactics retelling is often limited to the pragmatics of use. ›Retelling‹, however, is not a term used in literary studies. Although the term denotes a widespread cultural technique, which is used in schools and is accordingly also discussed in the didactics of literature, it has not yet been able to be acknowledged in the discipline. The greatest obstacle standing in the way of a conceptual version of retelling probably lies in its distinction from narrative. Narratology has not found any specifics in retelling that fundamentally distinguish it from narration. And the tools of trans-textuality and intertextuality developed especially in structuralism to describe textual relations are available for narrative texts anyway. Thus, literary studies already apply theories and tools that are useful for analyses of retelling: narratology, text theory and classification of a second-order literature, the theory of trans-textuality and intertextuality, and material history, as well as research on media transposition and adaptation. Defining retelling as a second-order narrative, or meta-narrative, inevitably raises the question of what is being repeated at all, and how, by means of narrative. Medieval studies particularly emphasize the aspect of repetition (›re-telling‹), which precedes a specific mediality of narration. Retelling as a variety of repetition neither presupposes a pre-text nor requires that a narrative be repeated. Rather, in retelling, the narrative procedure enters into the service of repetition. On the one hand, it is a variety of repetition, but not every repetition is also a narrative. On the other hand, one and the same text can be described from the point of view of narration or that of repetition. Literary studies that focus on the uses of retelling will pay attention to the varieties of repetition and should look at the relationship between the act of narration and repetition. Obviously, in retelling, the modes and ways, but also the degrees of reference to the pre-text can vary, so that it remains to be discussed which varieties of reference count as valid repetitions. In addition, there is the fundamental question of what falls under the concept of narrative and what components constitute it. Is narrative to be understood as a turning back with linguistic means? As an organization of events, which in turn are to be understood as displacements of actors across semantic or even physical boundaries? As little as a repetition by means of narration is linked to a preceding narrative text, it is equally questionable where and how a boundary between narrative and non-narrative representation could be drawn. In this respect, the following discussion of retelling touches, on the one hand, on the distinction between describing and narrating, w","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"167 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42333987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article deals with constellations of critique and the critiqued in conflicts over difficult texts. To this end, conflicts are observed in which difficulty is treated as a problem of comprehensibility of texts, which not only concerns stylistics, but also has an ethical dimension. However, the fact that difficult texts require explanation rather than being mediated conveyed is not only a cause for criticism, but also an occasion to prove the competence of the critic. Criticism of obscuritas or obscurity is a familiar topos in the history of rhetoric. The discussion of texts designated as difficult has taken place mainly implicitly in research on intelligibility and incomprehensibility. The relevant works deal primarily with the rhetoric and aesthetics of not only literary, but also philosophical texts. Difficulty emerges as a phenomenon that makes special demands on competence in reading texts (in the emphatic sense), a feature that can irritate readers. This irritation is by no means always judged negatively, as research has shown, particularly with regard to modernist literature, and here especially with regard to poetry. The difficult text, in its manifestation as an incomprehensible text, has been rehabilitated once again since the 20th century as evidence of special poetic quality. At the same time, difficulty also fulfills a function for hermeneutic and aesthetic theory formation, initiating new approaches again and again. Discussions about the comprehensibility of texts – and high or low difficulty as a criterion for comprehensibility – exhibit a strongly self-reflexive character: What appears to be in need of explanation is not only what a text has to offer in terms of form, aesthetics, or content (and what may make it incomprehensible or difficult), but also the role of the person who comments on this text as a critic or defender. The paper discusses this constellation on the basis of cases in which the normative dimension of the criterion of difficulty is mobilized in politically charged academic disputes. In the process, it becomes clear that accusations of tactical difficulty are made again and again. George Steiner described tactical difficulty as a procedure that he attributed primarily to literary avant-gardes, which he did not necessarily regard as negative. For Steiner, this meant texts whose authors use references, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices to force their readers to approach the work through other mediating texts such as commentaries. Steiner sees another motivation for the application of such tactical difficulty in the pressure for artistic innovation on the part of authors, who, against the backdrop of literary history, are left with only the path to particularly complex codifications in order to lend their work an original signature. In the first part of the paper, tactical difficulty is reconstructed alongside the other types of textual difficulty that George Steiner developed heuristically in his essay
{"title":"Schwierige Texte in Kritik und Vermittlung","authors":"Hanna Engelmeier","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article deals with constellations of critique and the critiqued in conflicts over difficult texts. To this end, conflicts are observed in which difficulty is treated as a problem of comprehensibility of texts, which not only concerns stylistics, but also has an ethical dimension. However, the fact that difficult texts require explanation rather than being mediated conveyed is not only a cause for criticism, but also an occasion to prove the competence of the critic. Criticism of obscuritas or obscurity is a familiar topos in the history of rhetoric. The discussion of texts designated as difficult has taken place mainly implicitly in research on intelligibility and incomprehensibility. The relevant works deal primarily with the rhetoric and aesthetics of not only literary, but also philosophical texts. Difficulty emerges as a phenomenon that makes special demands on competence in reading texts (in the emphatic sense), a feature that can irritate readers. This irritation is by no means always judged negatively, as research has shown, particularly with regard to modernist literature, and here especially with regard to poetry. The difficult text, in its manifestation as an incomprehensible text, has been rehabilitated once again since the 20th century as evidence of special poetic quality. At the same time, difficulty also fulfills a function for hermeneutic and aesthetic theory formation, initiating new approaches again and again. Discussions about the comprehensibility of texts – and high or low difficulty as a criterion for comprehensibility – exhibit a strongly self-reflexive character: What appears to be in need of explanation is not only what a text has to offer in terms of form, aesthetics, or content (and what may make it incomprehensible or difficult), but also the role of the person who comments on this text as a critic or defender. The paper discusses this constellation on the basis of cases in which the normative dimension of the criterion of difficulty is mobilized in politically charged academic disputes. In the process, it becomes clear that accusations of tactical difficulty are made again and again. George Steiner described tactical difficulty as a procedure that he attributed primarily to literary avant-gardes, which he did not necessarily regard as negative. For Steiner, this meant texts whose authors use references, vocabulary, and rhetorical devices to force their readers to approach the work through other mediating texts such as commentaries. Steiner sees another motivation for the application of such tactical difficulty in the pressure for artistic innovation on the part of authors, who, against the backdrop of literary history, are left with only the path to particularly complex codifications in order to lend their work an original signature. In the first part of the paper, tactical difficulty is reconstructed alongside the other types of textual difficulty that George Steiner developed heuristically in his essay","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"62 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44376423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article argues that today publishing is no longer solely an institutionally bound professional practice of so-called gatekeepers. Through self-publishing via digital infrastructures, it has become a format of action for both amateurs and professional authors alike. The widespread possibilities of self-publishing arise, on the one hand, from the establishment of self-publishing platforms such as Kindle Direct Publishing, Lulu or Wattpad, the acceptance of which has increased significantly due to the development and successful marketing of reading apps such as Kindle or iPad. On the other hand, they arise from the omnipresent possibilities of interactive online media, i. e. through self-publishing on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Both forms of self-publishing are part of what has been referred to as the ›appification‹ and ›platformization‹ of knowledge economies. The determination of the relationship between publishing and posting remains a gap in self-publishing research, which this article seeks to address. The article defines ›ubiquitous publishing‹ as the sum of self-publishing practices that are situated within a continuum of publishing and posting and give rise to hybrid publication models. The concept of ubiquitous publishing is to be determined from the coexistence and linkage of everyday and professional self-publishing practices. The goal is to understand ubiquitous publishing as a platform-based modeling of self-publication that competes alongside institutionalized publishing landscapes, shapes them, and questions them. With the multiplication of self-publishing, an intertwining of literary production with its infrastructural conditions, of literature and its mediation, takes place. In the first section, the text argues that self-publishing is an everyday competency or literacy, and that it is accompanied by new forms of professionalization and legitimization. The historical classification of self-publishing within the service economy is considered in the second section. This reveals a dependence of professional self-publishers on the audience’s needs, mediated by the market. New procedures for generating resonance and increasing publication frequency result from this dependence. Analyzing the self-publishing and subscription project Der Teutsche Merkur by Christoph Martin Wieland in the second section shows that these procedures were already essential for self-published journals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Through constellation with Rupi Kaur’s Instapoesie in the fourth section, common determining aspects of self-publishing emerge despite fundamental media-historical differences between analog and digital self-publishing. These include, above all, the procedures of serialization and (self-)commentary as well as the addressing of the audience. All of these procedures generate feedback between author and audience and allow mediation to become a constitutive component of the l
摘要本文认为，今天的出版不再仅仅是一种受制度约束的所谓“看门人”的专业实践。通过数字基础设施的自助出版，它已经成为业余爱好者和专业作者的一种行动形式。自出版的广泛可能性，一方面来自于Kindle Direct Publishing、Lulu、Wattpad等自出版平台的建立，由于Kindle、iPad等阅读应用的开发和成功营销，自出版的接受度显著提高。另一方面，它们源于交互式网络媒体无所不在的可能性。通过在Twitter、Facebook、Instagram等社交媒体平台上自行发布。这两种形式的自助出版都是知识经济的“应用”和“平台化”的一部分。出版与发帖关系的确定在自出版研究中仍是一个空白，本文试图解决这一问题。文章将“无处不在的出版”定义为自出版实践的总和，这些实践位于出版和发布的连续体中，并产生混合出版模式。泛在出版的概念将从日常和专业自助出版实践的共存和联系中确定。我们的目标是将无处不在的出版理解为一种基于平台的自我出版模型，它与制度化的出版格局竞争，塑造它们，并质疑它们。随着自助出版的激增，文学生产与其基础条件、文学及其中介的交织出现了。在第一部分中，文本认为自助出版是一种日常能力或素养，并且伴随着新的专业化和合法化形式。第二部分考虑了服务经济中自助出版的历史分类。这揭示了专业的自助出版商依赖于受众的需求，并以市场为中介。产生共鸣和增加发表频率的新程序源于这种依赖。第二部分对Christoph Martin Wieland的《Der Teutsche Merkur》自主出版和订阅项目的分析表明，这些程序对于18世纪末和19世纪初的自主出版期刊来说已经是必不可少的。通过在第四部分与Rupi Kaur的Instapoesie相结合，尽管模拟和数字自出版在媒体历史上存在根本差异，但自出版的共同决定因素还是出现了。这些首先包括连载和(自我)评论的程序，以及对观众的称呼。所有这些过程都在作者和读者之间产生反馈，并使调解成为文学文本的组成部分。在这种背景下，基于过滤和放大的社会技术机制，数字基础设施内的自我出版似乎是一种普遍可访问的社会实践。确立了使文学和文学合法化的新程序和新标准。本文认为，泛在出版理念是当前自助出版现状的一个重要方面。它展示了文学生产与其基础条件的交织，揭示了专业化和合法化的新形式。这表明，自出版文学始终是一种中介文学。这篇文章为正在进行的关于自助出版的定义和理解的辩论做出了贡献。
{"title":"Ubiquitäres Publizieren. Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Selbstveröffentlichens","authors":"Dorothea Walzer","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article argues that today publishing is no longer solely an institutionally bound professional practice of so-called gatekeepers. Through self-publishing via digital infrastructures, it has become a format of action for both amateurs and professional authors alike. The widespread possibilities of self-publishing arise, on the one hand, from the establishment of self-publishing platforms such as Kindle Direct Publishing, Lulu or Wattpad, the acceptance of which has increased significantly due to the development and successful marketing of reading apps such as Kindle or iPad. On the other hand, they arise from the omnipresent possibilities of interactive online media, i. e. through self-publishing on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. Both forms of self-publishing are part of what has been referred to as the ›appification‹ and ›platformization‹ of knowledge economies. The determination of the relationship between publishing and posting remains a gap in self-publishing research, which this article seeks to address. The article defines ›ubiquitous publishing‹ as the sum of self-publishing practices that are situated within a continuum of publishing and posting and give rise to hybrid publication models. The concept of ubiquitous publishing is to be determined from the coexistence and linkage of everyday and professional self-publishing practices. The goal is to understand ubiquitous publishing as a platform-based modeling of self-publication that competes alongside institutionalized publishing landscapes, shapes them, and questions them. With the multiplication of self-publishing, an intertwining of literary production with its infrastructural conditions, of literature and its mediation, takes place. In the first section, the text argues that self-publishing is an everyday competency or literacy, and that it is accompanied by new forms of professionalization and legitimization. The historical classification of self-publishing within the service economy is considered in the second section. This reveals a dependence of professional self-publishers on the audience’s needs, mediated by the market. New procedures for generating resonance and increasing publication frequency result from this dependence. Analyzing the self-publishing and subscription project Der Teutsche Merkur by Christoph Martin Wieland in the second section shows that these procedures were already essential for self-published journals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Through constellation with Rupi Kaur’s Instapoesie in the fourth section, common determining aspects of self-publishing emerge despite fundamental media-historical differences between analog and digital self-publishing. These include, above all, the procedures of serialization and (self-)commentary as well as the addressing of the audience. All of these procedures generate feedback between author and audience and allow mediation to become a constitutive component of the l","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"11 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47354843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：