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":null,"pages":null},"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 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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 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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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}
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：