Abstract This article deals with contemporary interweavings of literature and visual art. It asks to what extent they include their own form of mediation of the literary and can be relevant in terms of literary theory. This is prompted by the currently diagnosed migration towards ›Literature’s Elsewheres‹ (Annette Gilbert), which, within the omnipresent digital culture, leads away from its traditional media and places. As one of these refuges, the art museum has already come into focus. In addition to being a shelter, it also promises to be a site of reinvention for literature because it offers different modes of presentation, display structures, and modes of experience. Nevertheless, while the literariness of media art has already been explored (Claudia Benthien et al.), less consideration has been given to the spatializing means of exhibition display and, in particular, art installation. Particularly revealing are those examples that attempt to connect the museum and the digital elsewhere of literary writing. For this second site of transformation is usually considered as part of the mass-practiced digital reading-writing culture, so that bridges to the visual arts emerge primarily through related conceptual approaches of appropriation rather than through the specific experiential framework of the art context. As a starting point, therefore, serve theses on the writing of contemporary artists understood as a practice of appropriation that increasingly involves publication gestures and mediation performances (Stefan Römer). Thus, artistic appropriations of literature and poeticized theory can be brought into view, which are performed in physical as well as virtual spaces and, for this purpose, are subjected to a process of datafication as two selected works of contemporary art show. In addition, the concept of atmospheres anchored in recent aesthetics, literary and media theory proves helpful in approaching such examples. For as »spheres of sensed bodily presence« (Gernot Böhme), they imply a mediation-relevant concept of aesthetic experience that privileges body-bound presence over hermeneutics and also open up a different reality of literature (Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht). At the same time, as a concept linked back to space it enables an expanded understanding of space/body/object ensembles and can be intertwined with theories of atmospheric media including their immersive environments (Tim Othold). On this basis, the first main part of the article explores the tendencies towards conceptualization, spatialization, and the performative, which are particularly at work in the intermediation of literature and the visual arts. A common point of reference here is the conceptual as uncreative writing of Kenneth Goldsmith, which shows distinctive publication performances and uses of the physical space of art exhibitions. In order to further ground forms of the spatial-installative exhibition of literature in literary theory, recourse is made to Roman Jakob
摘要本文探讨当代文学与视觉艺术的交织。它问的是他们在多大程度上包含了自己的文学中介形式以及在文学理论方面的相关性。这是由目前被诊断为向《文学的别处》(Annette Gilbert)的迁移所推动的，在无所不在的数字文化中，它远离了传统的媒体和地方。作为这些避难所之一，艺术博物馆已经成为人们关注的焦点。除了作为一个庇护所，它还承诺成为一个文学再创造的场所，因为它提供了不同的呈现模式、展示结构和体验模式。然而，虽然媒体艺术的文学性已经被探索过(Claudia Benthien等人)，但对展览展示的空间化手段，特别是艺术装置的考虑却很少。那些试图将博物馆与文学写作的数字场所联系起来的例子尤其能说明问题。因为第二种转变通常被认为是大众实践的数字阅读-写作文化的一部分，因此，与视觉艺术的桥梁主要通过相关的挪用概念方法出现，而不是通过艺术背景的特定经验框架。因此，作为一个起点，服务于当代艺术家写作的论文被理解为一种越来越多地涉及出版姿态和调解表演的挪用实践(Stefan Römer)。因此，文学和诗化理论的艺术挪用可以进入视野，在物理空间和虚拟空间中进行，为此目的，作为当代艺术展览的两件精选作品，经历了数据化的过程。此外，最近的美学、文学和媒体理论中所锚定的氛围概念在接近这些例子时被证明是有帮助的。因为作为“感知身体存在的领域”(Gernot Böhme)，它们暗示了一种与审美经验相关的中介概念，这种概念将身体束缚的存在特权于解释学之上，也打开了一种不同的文学现实(汉斯·乌尔里希·冈布雷希特)。同时，作为一个与空间联系在一起的概念，它可以扩展对空间/身体/物体整体的理解，并可以与大气媒体的理论交织在一起，包括它们的沉浸式环境(Tim Othold)。在此基础上，文章的第一部分主要探讨了概念化、空间化和表演化的趋势，特别是在文学和视觉艺术的中介中起作用。这里一个共同的参考点是肯尼斯·戈德史密斯(Kenneth Goldsmith)的概念性非创造性写作，它展示了独特的出版表演和对艺术展览物理空间的使用。为了在文学理论中进一步确立文学的空间装置展示形式，我们参考了罗曼·雅各布森关于诗歌语言意义的思考，这种意义是由词语的位置性及其所唤起的对等所唤起的(Heike gfreereis)。此外，有必要在数字符号中简要界定文学与视觉艺术的关系，由于与印刷文本的分离，数字符号仍然倾向于它们的纠缠。戈德史密斯宣称的典范，旨在先锋主义和数字文化当代性方面的竞争，只是因为它们促进了写作、阅读和理论化的平衡，从而暗示了作家作为读者和自己的批评者之间的循环，但也是相当封闭的调解模式，所以看起来很有信息。除此之外，艺术之间的流动边界和“语言作品的跨学科和视听方法”(Catherine Bergvall)的前提对于分析相互调解更有利，可以追溯到Katherine N. Hayles和她早期对数字艺术的跨类型定义，其核心特征是文学而不是文本。不管现在的多模式研究议程(Thorsten Ries)和数字文学/艺术的概念化是“我们眼前的演讲”，它关注的是具体化的文学体验(Brooke Belisle)，然而，基于屏幕的图像往往仍然处于前景。关于艺术与文学的空间化与环境的纠缠，“文本即事件”的理论化提供了更多的线索。继对数字诗歌的反思(Katherine N. Hayles)之后，它又进一步发展为泛在计算的次语言平静技术(Roberto Simanowski)。虽然由此产生的“存在文化”被视为一种语义化，但皮埃尔·于格(Pierre Huyghe)和贾兹米娜·菲格罗亚(Jazmina Figueroa)在第二部分的两件作品引发了对这些对立是否必须保持的讨论。 为此选择了于格的展览，将埃德加·爱伦·坡的小说《阿瑟·戈登·皮姆的故事》转化为在布雷根茨艺术中心三层上演的所谓音乐剧，以及菲格罗亚为卡尔斯鲁厄艺术与媒体中心(ZKM)展览空间的虚拟复制品所构想的演讲表演。这两件艺术品可以被视为围绕文本氛围的范例，每一件作品都表现出自己特定的文学虚拟化。在Huyghe的展览中，他展示了一个已经数据化的，但在很大程度上是前数字时代的世界文学经典的艺术舞台，它被浓缩成人工天气事件。反过来，菲格奥拉将这样的乐谱转移到一个虚拟现实环境中，在那里，她的空间化的口语可以让个人导航的聆听体验，这些话语呈现出一种动机上的浓缩，对理论片段和神话主题的诗意化挪用。总之，这些博物馆和数字文学的典型艺术融合被认为是基于它们的存储形式和时间性，这使得文本作为大气存在事件的重新体验成为可能。
{"title":"Daten, Atmosphären, Texte – Künstlerische Erfahrungsräume und Virtualisierungen des Literarischen","authors":"Annette Urban","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article deals with contemporary interweavings of literature and visual art. It asks to what extent they include their own form of mediation of the literary and can be relevant in terms of literary theory. This is prompted by the currently diagnosed migration towards ›Literature’s Elsewheres‹ (Annette Gilbert), which, within the omnipresent digital culture, leads away from its traditional media and places. As one of these refuges, the art museum has already come into focus. In addition to being a shelter, it also promises to be a site of reinvention for literature because it offers different modes of presentation, display structures, and modes of experience. Nevertheless, while the literariness of media art has already been explored (Claudia Benthien et al.), less consideration has been given to the spatializing means of exhibition display and, in particular, art installation. Particularly revealing are those examples that attempt to connect the museum and the digital elsewhere of literary writing. For this second site of transformation is usually considered as part of the mass-practiced digital reading-writing culture, so that bridges to the visual arts emerge primarily through related conceptual approaches of appropriation rather than through the specific experiential framework of the art context. As a starting point, therefore, serve theses on the writing of contemporary artists understood as a practice of appropriation that increasingly involves publication gestures and mediation performances (Stefan Römer). Thus, artistic appropriations of literature and poeticized theory can be brought into view, which are performed in physical as well as virtual spaces and, for this purpose, are subjected to a process of datafication as two selected works of contemporary art show. In addition, the concept of atmospheres anchored in recent aesthetics, literary and media theory proves helpful in approaching such examples. For as »spheres of sensed bodily presence« (Gernot Böhme), they imply a mediation-relevant concept of aesthetic experience that privileges body-bound presence over hermeneutics and also open up a different reality of literature (Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht). At the same time, as a concept linked back to space it enables an expanded understanding of space/body/object ensembles and can be intertwined with theories of atmospheric media including their immersive environments (Tim Othold). On this basis, the first main part of the article explores the tendencies towards conceptualization, spatialization, and the performative, which are particularly at work in the intermediation of literature and the visual arts. A common point of reference here is the conceptual as uncreative writing of Kenneth Goldsmith, which shows distinctive publication performances and uses of the physical space of art exhibitions. In order to further ground forms of the spatial-installative exhibition of literature in literary theory, recourse is made to Roman Jakob","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"111 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45423058","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}
{"title":"Literatur in Vermittlung. Zur Einleitung","authors":"N. Binczek, Hanna Engelmeier, A. Schäfer","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"1 - 10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44828381","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 examines the institution of dramaturgy in theatre as an agency of mediation. The term »dramaturgy« still has a double meaning in most European languages. In many situations, it continues to designate the art of writing plays, and a dramaturge in French or Spanish is also a playwright. However, a few years ago, the originally German notion of the dramaturge also started spreading into other European languages and into theatre in Europe and around the world. This article traces the evolution of dramaturgy from its first appearance in the works of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing to its use in contemporary independent theatre – especially in the sector that is referred to as the Freie Szene in German. Dramaturgy came into existence during the transition from the episteme of »representation« to the episteme of »man« diagnosed by Michel Foucault (2003). Once the sovereign had exited the stages of theatre and politics, Lessing, the first dramaturge in history, searched for another affective bond between the isolated »subjects of interest« (Foucault 2004b) in civil society. Lessing translated Denis Diderot’s treatise on a theatre of intimate scenes into German; these scenes, hidden behind an invisible fourth wall, were to be watched by a public consisting of mere »witnesses one does not know about« (Diderot 1996, 336). It is especially remarkable how Lessing’s interpretation of Diderot as well as his own work as a dramaturge was shaped by Protestantism. His theatre was supposed to mediate a clear message that concerned each of the individuals assembling in the theatre directly. A comparison between Lessing’s reading of Aristotle’s Poetics and Luther’s brief notes on Protestant liturgy shows that both understood the proceedings – the performance of a play or service – not as a ritual that is temporally structured by poetics or liturgy but as an event that conveys a certain message. For Luther, the clear reading of the translated bible and the sermon were central to the service; Lessing, who fiercely fought Johann Christoph Gottsched’s attempts to write a new poetics of the theatre, translated and reinterpreted Aristotle’s concept of kátharsis into a concept centered on feeling pity for human beings »of the same stamp and grain« (Lessing 1988, 422). Theatre, like the service, became an event that concerns each visitor directly. Dramaturges exercise what Foucault calls »pastoral power« (cf. Foucault 2004a, 173–200, and passim) and become the herdsmen of the spectators assembled to cry for their own kind. Their regulative position is thus related to that of the police (Schiller 1982; Vogl 2006; 2008; Müller-Schöll 2020). But the post-sovereign and – not just in Lessing’s case – eminently Protestant governance of affects is again and again confronted by the persistence of the representation of sovereignty despite the epistemic transformation to »man« analyzed by Foucault, not only in the colonies of European states (Spivak 2008) but also in a p
{"title":"Textuelle Infrastrukturen des Theaters. Dramaturgie als Vermittlung","authors":"Jörn Etzold","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2005","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines the institution of dramaturgy in theatre as an agency of mediation. The term »dramaturgy« still has a double meaning in most European languages. In many situations, it continues to designate the art of writing plays, and a dramaturge in French or Spanish is also a playwright. However, a few years ago, the originally German notion of the dramaturge also started spreading into other European languages and into theatre in Europe and around the world. This article traces the evolution of dramaturgy from its first appearance in the works of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing to its use in contemporary independent theatre – especially in the sector that is referred to as the Freie Szene in German. Dramaturgy came into existence during the transition from the episteme of »representation« to the episteme of »man« diagnosed by Michel Foucault (2003). Once the sovereign had exited the stages of theatre and politics, Lessing, the first dramaturge in history, searched for another affective bond between the isolated »subjects of interest« (Foucault 2004b) in civil society. Lessing translated Denis Diderot’s treatise on a theatre of intimate scenes into German; these scenes, hidden behind an invisible fourth wall, were to be watched by a public consisting of mere »witnesses one does not know about« (Diderot 1996, 336). It is especially remarkable how Lessing’s interpretation of Diderot as well as his own work as a dramaturge was shaped by Protestantism. His theatre was supposed to mediate a clear message that concerned each of the individuals assembling in the theatre directly. A comparison between Lessing’s reading of Aristotle’s Poetics and Luther’s brief notes on Protestant liturgy shows that both understood the proceedings – the performance of a play or service – not as a ritual that is temporally structured by poetics or liturgy but as an event that conveys a certain message. For Luther, the clear reading of the translated bible and the sermon were central to the service; Lessing, who fiercely fought Johann Christoph Gottsched’s attempts to write a new poetics of the theatre, translated and reinterpreted Aristotle’s concept of kátharsis into a concept centered on feeling pity for human beings »of the same stamp and grain« (Lessing 1988, 422). Theatre, like the service, became an event that concerns each visitor directly. Dramaturges exercise what Foucault calls »pastoral power« (cf. Foucault 2004a, 173–200, and passim) and become the herdsmen of the spectators assembled to cry for their own kind. Their regulative position is thus related to that of the police (Schiller 1982; Vogl 2006; 2008; Müller-Schöll 2020). But the post-sovereign and – not just in Lessing’s case – eminently Protestant governance of affects is again and again confronted by the persistence of the representation of sovereignty despite the epistemic transformation to »man« analyzed by Foucault, not only in the colonies of European states (Spivak 2008) but also in a p","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"88 - 110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45821720","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 text intends to contribute to the transformation of the classical printed book to its alternative forms and shapes, praxeologies and customs. Besides digital variants, this also applies to those that specifically emphasize other forms of reception, those that shift the reading experience into the virtual sphere. At the same time, the book has an enormous capacity to persist in the economy of mediation. This applies both to the customs of its use and to its cultural status in general. It is self-evident that this transfer of the book’s appearance does not take place without interruption. Of course, there are significant differences both in reading habits and in reading scenes. Reading modalities have also changed, diversified and differentiated. However, the appearance of the classical book and the traditional ways of dealing with it persist. It is necessary to situate this appearance of the book and thereby put its persistence in relation to the phenomenal formations, to the changed arrangements, infrastructures, and materialities. The book remains valid as a semantically as well as phenomenally equally resilient center of organization, not least because it succeeds in regaining terrain by the use of technical possibilities and thus also by reaffirming its historically vouchsafed phantasmatics, for instance by using new sensualities. Procedures of virtualization and augmentation turn reading into an advanced reception possibility, adapted to the state of the art of the technical world of living and reading. In the course of this shift, not only did the possibilities of reception change, but also the object of reading. Both aspects can be condensed into two core concepts, which also characterize the title: Multisensory and Uniqueness. Multisensory integrates other senses such as tactility and haptics in addition to seeing and hearing. Whereas the concept of uniqueness encompasses moments that promote a regionalization of literature. The corresponding narrative appears increasingly data-driven (data epics): It is based on a sensorial recording of life circumstances, and on the individual and personal set pieces which can be found in the respective environments. Not the major themes of world literature, but the respective life conditions with their everyday objects and behaviors become the driving force of narratives and reading moments. This finding is particularly striking in view of the possibility of typographic duplication and contradicts common expectations. The object of reading and thus of literary mediation is thus less a canon of literary works that is considered authoritative. Rather highly personalized narrative forms and narrative moments are tapped in the course of changed receptions. These emerge in different places and with different target groups as effects of these new possibilities. In this way, an almost poetological momentum is unleashed that not only works its way through predefined narrative patterns and a canon
{"title":"Neues Lesen. Unikalität und Multisensorik als Strategien der Literaturvermittlung","authors":"S. Rieger","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2023-2007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2023-2007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This text intends to contribute to the transformation of the classical printed book to its alternative forms and shapes, praxeologies and customs. Besides digital variants, this also applies to those that specifically emphasize other forms of reception, those that shift the reading experience into the virtual sphere. At the same time, the book has an enormous capacity to persist in the economy of mediation. This applies both to the customs of its use and to its cultural status in general. It is self-evident that this transfer of the book’s appearance does not take place without interruption. Of course, there are significant differences both in reading habits and in reading scenes. Reading modalities have also changed, diversified and differentiated. However, the appearance of the classical book and the traditional ways of dealing with it persist. It is necessary to situate this appearance of the book and thereby put its persistence in relation to the phenomenal formations, to the changed arrangements, infrastructures, and materialities. The book remains valid as a semantically as well as phenomenally equally resilient center of organization, not least because it succeeds in regaining terrain by the use of technical possibilities and thus also by reaffirming its historically vouchsafed phantasmatics, for instance by using new sensualities. Procedures of virtualization and augmentation turn reading into an advanced reception possibility, adapted to the state of the art of the technical world of living and reading. In the course of this shift, not only did the possibilities of reception change, but also the object of reading. Both aspects can be condensed into two core concepts, which also characterize the title: Multisensory and Uniqueness. Multisensory integrates other senses such as tactility and haptics in addition to seeing and hearing. Whereas the concept of uniqueness encompasses moments that promote a regionalization of literature. The corresponding narrative appears increasingly data-driven (data epics): It is based on a sensorial recording of life circumstances, and on the individual and personal set pieces which can be found in the respective environments. Not the major themes of world literature, but the respective life conditions with their everyday objects and behaviors become the driving force of narratives and reading moments. This finding is particularly striking in view of the possibility of typographic duplication and contradicts common expectations. The object of reading and thus of literary mediation is thus less a canon of literary works that is considered authoritative. Rather highly personalized narrative forms and narrative moments are tapped in the course of changed receptions. These emerge in different places and with different target groups as effects of these new possibilities. In this way, an almost poetological momentum is unleashed that not only works its way through predefined narrative patterns and a canon ","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":"143 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47207099","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}
{"title":"Introduction: Relations between Literary Theory and Memory Studies","authors":"Urania Milevski, Lena Wetenkamp","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"197 - 212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45145356","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 staging of history in literature is engaged in dynamic exchange with society’s memory discourses and in this context, literature is generally seen as playing a creative role as a formative medium in memory cultures. For some time, however, many feel that established concepts of Cultural Memory Studies need to be reconsidered for multiethnic societies. The assumption is that official memory cultures tend to exclude people with a migrant background from identity-forming discourses about the past. Using Germany as an example, this paper argues, first, that the question of memory in multiethnic societies needs to be reconsidered indeed, but in a different direction than has been assumed so far, and, second, that much-discussed concepts such as the post-migrant paradigm or multidirectional memory tend to circumvent the problems at hand rather than contribute to their solution. The paper therefore discusses the preconditions for a literary-theoretical engagement with this socio-political issue and the direction in which an alternative conceptualization would have to go – that is, not a new theory or method, but a novel perspective that should be the basis for future theory building. Rather than confining the notion of a »shared history« to, either the common history of a country’s native population, or to the history since migration shared by minorities and receiving society, this paper proposes to focus on actual links between the histories of Germany as the receiving society and the histories of the new Germans’ countries of origin. Using literary texts and discussing a concrete example, it brings such shared histories to the fore and explores how they open up national memory discourses transnationally. The underlying vision is that these important components of multiethnic societies have the potential to show a way in which national and transnational memory landscapes as a whole could be transformed. In this sense, the metaphor of »Migration into Other Pasts« may be rephrased as migration not »into the past of others« but a territorial move within one common shared history. The paper therefore shows that the prerequisites for a literary-theoretical examination of the question of memory culture in multiethnic societies and its literary representations must be sought in the offerings of literature itself. The literary example, Orkun Ertener’s novel Lebt (Alive/Live! 2014), with its numerous entangled and interweaving shared histories shows particularly clearly how literature can function as a drive or even theory generator for concepts to be developed – instead of, conversely, imposing readymade concepts on both German multiethnic societies and its literary production. The novel perspective of this paper can be summarized in the inversion of the conventional point of departure: Instead of looking for a way to include people with a migrant background into the German memory culture, the first question to be asked should be how, in the age o
摘要文学中的历史舞台与社会的记忆话语进行着动态的交流，在这种背景下，文学通常被视为在记忆文化中扮演着一个形成媒介的创造性角色。然而，一段时间以来，许多人认为文化记忆研究的既定概念需要为多民族社会重新考虑。这一假设是，官方记忆文化倾向于将具有移民背景的人排除在关于过去的身份形成话语之外。以德国为例，本文认为，首先，多民族社会中的记忆问题确实需要重新考虑，但方向与迄今为止的假设不同；其次，许多讨论过的概念，如后移民范式或多向记忆，往往会绕过眼前的问题，而不是帮助解决这些问题。因此，本文讨论了文学理论参与这一社会政治问题的先决条件，以及替代概念化的方向——也就是说，不是一种新的理论或方法，而是一种新颖的视角，应该成为未来理论构建的基础。本文不将“共同历史”的概念局限于一个国家土著人口的共同历史，也不局限于少数民族和接受社会共同的移民历史，而是建议关注作为接受社会的德国历史与新德国人原籍国历史之间的实际联系。通过文学文本和讨论一个具体的例子，它将这种共同的历史带到了前台，并探讨了它们如何在全国范围内打开民族记忆话语。潜在的愿景是，多民族社会的这些重要组成部分有可能展示一种改变国家和跨国记忆景观的方式。从这个意义上讲，“迁移到其他牧场”的比喻可以被重新表述为“不是”迁移到其他人的过去”，而是一个共同历史中的领土迁移。因此，本文表明，对多民族社会中的记忆文化及其文学表征问题进行文学理论研究的前提必须是在文学本身的提供中寻求。奥尔昆·埃尔特纳（Orkun Ertener）的小说《Lebt》（Alive/Live！2014）就是一个文学例子，它有着众多纠缠和交织的共同历史，特别清楚地表明了文学是如何成为概念发展的动力甚至理论生成器的，而不是反过来将现成的概念强加给德国多民族社会及其文学生产。本文的新颖视角可以用传统出发点的倒置来概括：与其寻找一种将移民背景的人纳入德国记忆文化的方法，首先要问的问题应该是，在纠缠历史概念普遍被认可的时代，这种想法可能会产生并持续很长时间，例如，土耳其血统的移民与德国历史无关。奥尔昆·埃尔特纳的小说《Lebt》通过关注德国人与新德国人之间的历史联系，在这方面选择了一种不同的方法。它提供了关于德国、希腊、犹太和土耳其/奥斯曼历史的记忆话语的跨国扩展，从而开辟了一个新的、姗姗来迟的记忆空间，这是德国及其他地区多民族社会的核心利益所在。似乎，只有那些对纠缠的历史比对历史更感兴趣的作家才能将其作为身份的资源。埃尔特纳无疑属于这类作家，尤其是他引用或提及了一些最重要的历史研究，从马克·马佐尔的《萨洛尼卡——幽灵之城》（Salonica–City of Ghosts）到土耳其，这是对塞萨洛尼基多民族和多文化历史的标准参考，Corry Guttstadt对土耳其犹太人友好政策的神话提出了质疑。埃尔特纳的小说《Lebt》充满了不同种族群体相互关联的历史，因此可能成为多元种族社会中记忆文化愿景的蓝图。最后，本文概述了在多民族社会及其文学表征中发展记忆和历史意识的替代概念，不能建立在移民后或多向记忆等广泛讨论的概念之上。尽管肤浅的一瞥表明它们可能是本文主题的明显选择，但一部关于多民族记忆景观的小说必须从特定的共同历史及其纠葛开始。因此，本文提出，在多民族社会中记忆表征的情况下，自下而上发展理论方法论工作是必要的。
{"title":"Shared Histories in Multiethnic Societies: Literature as a Critical Corrective of Cultural Memory Studies","authors":"Monika Albrecht","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The staging of history in literature is engaged in dynamic exchange with society’s memory discourses and in this context, literature is generally seen as playing a creative role as a formative medium in memory cultures. For some time, however, many feel that established concepts of Cultural Memory Studies need to be reconsidered for multiethnic societies. The assumption is that official memory cultures tend to exclude people with a migrant background from identity-forming discourses about the past. Using Germany as an example, this paper argues, first, that the question of memory in multiethnic societies needs to be reconsidered indeed, but in a different direction than has been assumed so far, and, second, that much-discussed concepts such as the post-migrant paradigm or multidirectional memory tend to circumvent the problems at hand rather than contribute to their solution. The paper therefore discusses the preconditions for a literary-theoretical engagement with this socio-political issue and the direction in which an alternative conceptualization would have to go – that is, not a new theory or method, but a novel perspective that should be the basis for future theory building. Rather than confining the notion of a »shared history« to, either the common history of a country’s native population, or to the history since migration shared by minorities and receiving society, this paper proposes to focus on actual links between the histories of Germany as the receiving society and the histories of the new Germans’ countries of origin. Using literary texts and discussing a concrete example, it brings such shared histories to the fore and explores how they open up national memory discourses transnationally. The underlying vision is that these important components of multiethnic societies have the potential to show a way in which national and transnational memory landscapes as a whole could be transformed. In this sense, the metaphor of »Migration into Other Pasts« may be rephrased as migration not »into the past of others« but a territorial move within one common shared history. The paper therefore shows that the prerequisites for a literary-theoretical examination of the question of memory culture in multiethnic societies and its literary representations must be sought in the offerings of literature itself. The literary example, Orkun Ertener’s novel Lebt (Alive/Live! 2014), with its numerous entangled and interweaving shared histories shows particularly clearly how literature can function as a drive or even theory generator for concepts to be developed – instead of, conversely, imposing readymade concepts on both German multiethnic societies and its literary production. The novel perspective of this paper can be summarized in the inversion of the conventional point of departure: Instead of looking for a way to include people with a migrant background into the German memory culture, the first question to be asked should be how, in the age o","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"309 - 330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43297317","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 Our essay deals with narratives of social upheaval that act as vehicles for transgenerational memory transfer. We look at narratives of collectively experienced processes of emancipation and the subsequent possibility of remembering things not experienced firsthand under the prism of the political event of revolution understood as an inherently violent process (Arendt 1990). In this context, we inquire about postmemory along similar lines to those staked out by Marianne Hirsch, while also considering whether the term can be separated from trauma and linked to other emotional responses of comparable affective intensity. Memories of violence are frequently disjointed and impressionistic. The connection of fragments to a narrative context is often severed while the action of linking the threads into a coherent narrative faces vehement resistance. In principle, this is not different from the experience of violence in revolutions and their remembrance. However, narratives on revolution tend to exert a strong force of attraction upon their recipients. Considering the figures of cycle, linear progression, iteration, disruption and irreversibility as the time modes of revolution, we look at how these have enabled entirely new understandings of time since the nineteenth century. New forms of temporality, in turn, are entangled with the role displacement plays in the relationship between a transgenerational transfer of narratives and the construction of narrative time. In order to explore how a generation deals with the dominance (Hirsch 2012) of the narratives transmitted to them by the preceding one, we deal with two models in which affective states charged with both suffering and pleasure are developed into terms of cultural and literary theory: Bini Adamczak’s reading of desire as fetish in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, and Svetlana Boym’s work on nostalgia as an emotional disposition characteristic for modernity. Taking into account that both models are more or less constructed by cultural practices, historical events, and transformations in the history of ideas, and thus cannot always be precisely distinguished from one another, we present two main narrative strategies: The reception of the stories of one generation by another involves either contracting the affective intensity of their narratives at the expense of linear time or expanding narrative time far beyond individual life spans. For our analysis we mainly refer to Rodolfo Usigli’s Ensayo de un crimen and Heinrich Heine’s Ludwig Börne: A Memorial as post memory narratives on revolution. We understand them as examples of each narrative strategy and as part of the dialectic of this way of remembering.
{"title":"Inherited Revolution. Narratives in Transgenerational Memory Transfer","authors":"Ana Nunes de Almeida, Christian Wimplinger","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2026","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Our essay deals with narratives of social upheaval that act as vehicles for transgenerational memory transfer. We look at narratives of collectively experienced processes of emancipation and the subsequent possibility of remembering things not experienced firsthand under the prism of the political event of revolution understood as an inherently violent process (Arendt 1990). In this context, we inquire about postmemory along similar lines to those staked out by Marianne Hirsch, while also considering whether the term can be separated from trauma and linked to other emotional responses of comparable affective intensity. Memories of violence are frequently disjointed and impressionistic. The connection of fragments to a narrative context is often severed while the action of linking the threads into a coherent narrative faces vehement resistance. In principle, this is not different from the experience of violence in revolutions and their remembrance. However, narratives on revolution tend to exert a strong force of attraction upon their recipients. Considering the figures of cycle, linear progression, iteration, disruption and irreversibility as the time modes of revolution, we look at how these have enabled entirely new understandings of time since the nineteenth century. New forms of temporality, in turn, are entangled with the role displacement plays in the relationship between a transgenerational transfer of narratives and the construction of narrative time. In order to explore how a generation deals with the dominance (Hirsch 2012) of the narratives transmitted to them by the preceding one, we deal with two models in which affective states charged with both suffering and pleasure are developed into terms of cultural and literary theory: Bini Adamczak’s reading of desire as fetish in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, and Svetlana Boym’s work on nostalgia as an emotional disposition characteristic for modernity. Taking into account that both models are more or less constructed by cultural practices, historical events, and transformations in the history of ideas, and thus cannot always be precisely distinguished from one another, we present two main narrative strategies: The reception of the stories of one generation by another involves either contracting the affective intensity of their narratives at the expense of linear time or expanding narrative time far beyond individual life spans. For our analysis we mainly refer to Rodolfo Usigli’s Ensayo de un crimen and Heinrich Heine’s Ludwig Börne: A Memorial as post memory narratives on revolution. We understand them as examples of each narrative strategy and as part of the dialectic of this way of remembering.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"289 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41891897","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 Literary narratives not only often thematize memory as a topic; they also directly represent or stage concrete processes of remembering by way of various narrative techniques. This article offers a systematic approach to these techniques which is informed both by narratology and interdisciplinary memory studies. Specifically, the contribution offers a toolbox for the analysis of what we refer to as the ›mimesis of remembering‹: through a variety of textual strategies, literary texts can create ›memory-like‹ effects. How such ›mnestic narration‹ is achieved and what functions it might fulfil is the main concern of this article. Most generally, we argue, two basic structural principles are the basis for a narrative mimesis of remembering: first, such narratives feature a centre of subjective perception, a consciousness who performs the process of remembering (either on the level of the narrative mediation or the level of the characters), and second, they need to feature at least two distinct time levels. However, not all narratives that contain these very common aspects are equally invested in representing processes of remembering. We propose to think of the mnestic quality of texts as a scalar phenomenon, where passages set in the narrative past can be more or less emphatically (and continuously) marked as rendering products or processes of remembering. Besides introducing various basic aspects of a mimesis of remembering – representation of time and space, narrative mediation and focalization, and questions of narrative unreliability –, the article not only offers a toolbox for analysis, but also discusses, on the basis of selected texts, how these aspects can be designed and combined in ways that serve to highlight a text’s mnestic qualities. We come to the conclusion that in order to fully understand these effects, one must set them into broader cultural and historical contexts. For one thing, it needs to be considered how the representations in the texts relate to evolving conceptualizations of the process of remembering itself. Moreover, one must be aware of changing narrative conventions for the representations of ›normal‹ or unmarked acts of remembering, which may also serve as a foil to foreground unusual instances.
{"title":"Mimesis of Remembering","authors":"Michael Basseler, Dorothee Birke","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2023","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Literary narratives not only often thematize memory as a topic; they also directly represent or stage concrete processes of remembering by way of various narrative techniques. This article offers a systematic approach to these techniques which is informed both by narratology and interdisciplinary memory studies. Specifically, the contribution offers a toolbox for the analysis of what we refer to as the ›mimesis of remembering‹: through a variety of textual strategies, literary texts can create ›memory-like‹ effects. How such ›mnestic narration‹ is achieved and what functions it might fulfil is the main concern of this article. Most generally, we argue, two basic structural principles are the basis for a narrative mimesis of remembering: first, such narratives feature a centre of subjective perception, a consciousness who performs the process of remembering (either on the level of the narrative mediation or the level of the characters), and second, they need to feature at least two distinct time levels. However, not all narratives that contain these very common aspects are equally invested in representing processes of remembering. We propose to think of the mnestic quality of texts as a scalar phenomenon, where passages set in the narrative past can be more or less emphatically (and continuously) marked as rendering products or processes of remembering. Besides introducing various basic aspects of a mimesis of remembering – representation of time and space, narrative mediation and focalization, and questions of narrative unreliability –, the article not only offers a toolbox for analysis, but also discusses, on the basis of selected texts, how these aspects can be designed and combined in ways that serve to highlight a text’s mnestic qualities. We come to the conclusion that in order to fully understand these effects, one must set them into broader cultural and historical contexts. For one thing, it needs to be considered how the representations in the texts relate to evolving conceptualizations of the process of remembering itself. Moreover, one must be aware of changing narrative conventions for the representations of ›normal‹ or unmarked acts of remembering, which may also serve as a foil to foreground unusual instances.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"213 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48321680","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 empathy constitutes the mode in which lyric poetry registers in the readers. However, unlike in prose, where the reader is allowed to empathize with the characters via the mediation of the narrator, in poetry, as Jonathan Culler and a number of other theoreticians of the lyric have indicated, the reader assumes the position of the speaker, thus becoming a reperformer of the text. This positioning, in turn, creates a situation in which the text, rather than representing a mental state, embodies it and in the process of being enacted impels the reader to internalize this state. I then move on to complement this distinction between poetry and prose by noting the fact that critics who explore how empathy is employed in reading fiction appear to depart from assumptions of comprehensibility and stability of the representations of characters’ mental states. This is shown in the analysis of the work of such critics as Suzanne Keen and Liza Zunshine. By contrast, in lyric poetry, empathy is both necessitated and simultaneously disoriented through the discontinuous, open-ended nature of the poetic text. As a result, the reader is perpetually made to feel into the speaker’s evocations of mental states but his or her empathic efforts are thwarted by the operations of the text in which a given affect is being evoked and disarticulated at the same time. This dialectic of empathy and disorientation is a dynamic process that can take various forms. In the last section of the present essay, I analyze three poems, »Punishment« by Seamus Heaney, »The Loaf« by Paul Muldoon and »Geis« by Caitríona O’Reilly, in order to show how the empathic impulse is both triggered and disoriented by the tensions between the poems’ denotative meanings and their formal features, mainly prosody and rhyme scheme. Thus, a tentative conclusion is that lyric poetry’s formal complexity and its non-mimetic nature enter into a dynamic relationship with the propositional content – a dynamic which contributes to the continual disorientation of our empathic capacity that is the essential form of our performance of the poetic text. This tension may manifest itself in how form and content challenge each other or how they cooperate, which in either case leaves us with a rather uncomfortable feeling of having witnessed not a representation of but an embodied, real-time moment of intimate and essentially aporetic experiential performance.
{"title":"Lyric Poetry and the Disorientation of Empathy","authors":"Wit Píetrzak","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2029","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the present essay, I argue that empathy constitutes the mode in which lyric poetry registers in the readers. However, unlike in prose, where the reader is allowed to empathize with the characters via the mediation of the narrator, in poetry, as Jonathan Culler and a number of other theoreticians of the lyric have indicated, the reader assumes the position of the speaker, thus becoming a reperformer of the text. This positioning, in turn, creates a situation in which the text, rather than representing a mental state, embodies it and in the process of being enacted impels the reader to internalize this state. I then move on to complement this distinction between poetry and prose by noting the fact that critics who explore how empathy is employed in reading fiction appear to depart from assumptions of comprehensibility and stability of the representations of characters’ mental states. This is shown in the analysis of the work of such critics as Suzanne Keen and Liza Zunshine. By contrast, in lyric poetry, empathy is both necessitated and simultaneously disoriented through the discontinuous, open-ended nature of the poetic text. As a result, the reader is perpetually made to feel into the speaker’s evocations of mental states but his or her empathic efforts are thwarted by the operations of the text in which a given affect is being evoked and disarticulated at the same time. This dialectic of empathy and disorientation is a dynamic process that can take various forms. In the last section of the present essay, I analyze three poems, »Punishment« by Seamus Heaney, »The Loaf« by Paul Muldoon and »Geis« by Caitríona O’Reilly, in order to show how the empathic impulse is both triggered and disoriented by the tensions between the poems’ denotative meanings and their formal features, mainly prosody and rhyme scheme. Thus, a tentative conclusion is that lyric poetry’s formal complexity and its non-mimetic nature enter into a dynamic relationship with the propositional content – a dynamic which contributes to the continual disorientation of our empathic capacity that is the essential form of our performance of the poetic text. This tension may manifest itself in how form and content challenge each other or how they cooperate, which in either case leaves us with a rather uncomfortable feeling of having witnessed not a representation of but an embodied, real-time moment of intimate and essentially aporetic experiential performance.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"351 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42626201","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 There is something peculiar about memory insofar as it tends to be formed across boundaries. We can think of it as located in an in-between zone, on the threshold »where the outside world meets the world inside you« (Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). Somehow, memory oscillates between the inside and the outside, connecting the subjective and the objective, the imaginary and the real, the self and the other, the individual and the collective. Memory involves all aspects of human life, be they biological, psychological, social, or cultural. Due to its omnipresence, memory is the object of a diverse range of disciplines. Correspondingly, the field of memory studies is situated at the intersection of a bewildering variety of disciplines, which creates exciting interdisciplinary opportunities, but also epistemological and methodological challenges. According to Mieke Bal, interdisciplinarity »must seek its heuristic and methodological basis in concepts rather than methods«. Liminality is a concept that seems particularly well-suited to address problems that arise from the distinctive in-between position of memory. So far, however, it has been largely ignored in memory studies. The concept of liminality deals with ›threshold‹ characteristics. Liminal phenomena and states are »betwixt and between«; they are »necessarily ambiguous« and »slip through the network of classifications« (Victor Turner). The concept of liminality helps to avoid »delusions of certainty« (Siri Hustvedt) by drawing attention to interstitial entities and processes that resist clear-cut categorizations and are inherently blurry and impalpable. »Every brain is the product of other brains« (Hustvedt) and so is memory: »we always carry with us and in us a number of distinct persons« (Maurice Halbwachs). Instead of being able to distinguish clearly between individual, social, and cultural memory, we are confronted with their dynamic interactions and complex entanglements: »to understand me, you’ll have to swallow a world« (Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). There is »the constant ›travel‹ of mnemonic contents between media and minds« (Astrid Erll), as well as their ›migration‹ from one culture to another (Aby Warburg). Memory is deeply relational and always in motion in regions of the ›between‹. This contribution focuses on these qualities through the lens of liminality. Its purpose is to introduce the concept of liminality as an analytical tool in literary memory studies and to put it to the test by applying it to a paradigmatic literary text about memory. Section one provides an introduction to the concept of liminality as it was developed by the anthropologist Victor Turner. The second section brings liminality and memory together and reflects on liminal, relational, and complex aspects of memory, with the main emphasis on complexity. In section three, the focus shifts to literature and the applicability of liminality as a concept in literary memory studies. Theories implici
{"title":"The Concept of Liminality as a Theoretical Tool in Literary Memory Studies: Liminal Aspects of Memory in Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children","authors":"Claudia Mueller-Greene","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2025","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is something peculiar about memory insofar as it tends to be formed across boundaries. We can think of it as located in an in-between zone, on the threshold »where the outside world meets the world inside you« (Salman Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). Somehow, memory oscillates between the inside and the outside, connecting the subjective and the objective, the imaginary and the real, the self and the other, the individual and the collective. Memory involves all aspects of human life, be they biological, psychological, social, or cultural. Due to its omnipresence, memory is the object of a diverse range of disciplines. Correspondingly, the field of memory studies is situated at the intersection of a bewildering variety of disciplines, which creates exciting interdisciplinary opportunities, but also epistemological and methodological challenges. According to Mieke Bal, interdisciplinarity »must seek its heuristic and methodological basis in concepts rather than methods«. Liminality is a concept that seems particularly well-suited to address problems that arise from the distinctive in-between position of memory. So far, however, it has been largely ignored in memory studies. The concept of liminality deals with ›threshold‹ characteristics. Liminal phenomena and states are »betwixt and between«; they are »necessarily ambiguous« and »slip through the network of classifications« (Victor Turner). The concept of liminality helps to avoid »delusions of certainty« (Siri Hustvedt) by drawing attention to interstitial entities and processes that resist clear-cut categorizations and are inherently blurry and impalpable. »Every brain is the product of other brains« (Hustvedt) and so is memory: »we always carry with us and in us a number of distinct persons« (Maurice Halbwachs). Instead of being able to distinguish clearly between individual, social, and cultural memory, we are confronted with their dynamic interactions and complex entanglements: »to understand me, you’ll have to swallow a world« (Rushdie, Midnight’s Children). There is »the constant ›travel‹ of mnemonic contents between media and minds« (Astrid Erll), as well as their ›migration‹ from one culture to another (Aby Warburg). Memory is deeply relational and always in motion in regions of the ›between‹. This contribution focuses on these qualities through the lens of liminality. Its purpose is to introduce the concept of liminality as an analytical tool in literary memory studies and to put it to the test by applying it to a paradigmatic literary text about memory. Section one provides an introduction to the concept of liminality as it was developed by the anthropologist Victor Turner. The second section brings liminality and memory together and reflects on liminal, relational, and complex aspects of memory, with the main emphasis on complexity. In section three, the focus shifts to literature and the applicability of liminality as a concept in literary memory studies. Theories implici","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"264 - 288"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46698904","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：