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":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":"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":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":"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":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":"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":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":"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":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":"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}
Abstract While the general link between storytelling and remembering has often been underlined with regard to such topics as traumatic experience or the construction of identity, there are hardly any studies that analyse the mnestic performance that underpins the reading of narrative plots in literary texts. In order for a story to create meaning, the reader has to remember earlier events, thus becoming able to understand how conflicts arise and are resolved. If this fact seems much too obvious to require any questioning, the process of plot-related remembering takes on considerable complexity when it comes to long novelistic texts. In these cases, reading amounts to an exercise in remembering and writing becomes a way of addressing and guiding the reader’s memory. This article proposes a theory of emplotted memory, i. e. of how narrative texts create a sequence of events in the memory of the reader. It argues, furthermore, that emplotted remembering is a dimension of implied readership and that it can be analysed on a textual level. Gathering elements and cues for such a theory, the first section of the article begins with an examination of the rule laid down in Aristotle’s Poetics that the mythos of tragedy has to be easily rememberable (eumnēmoneuton). As the famous analogy of the animal body suggests, both the limited extension and the holistic structure of the ideal tragic plot prevent the audience from forgetting how events tie in with each other. The very intelligibility and the cathartic effect of tragedy hence depend on a mnestic activity. But whereas tragedy has to become rememberable by means of the plot’s inner structure and limited size alone, epic can use narrative techniques such as flashbacks and summaries in order to comprehend a much longer time span. In his theory of narrative desire, Peter Brooks builds on these insights and conceives plot as a dynamic process of anticipation and retrospection that heavily involves the reader’s memory. For Brooks, emplotted remembering amounts to a passionate quest for meaning: Narrative tension implies that a psychic need prevents the reader from forgetting as long as the end of the plot has not been reached. The more coherent the narrative structure of the text, the more intense the activity of emplotted remembering will be. The theoretical section of the article concludes with a review of some studies from the field of empirical psychology that have addressed the recall of stories. It turns out that the basic assumptions derived from Aristotle and Brooks – such as the importance of remembering for the comprehension of narrative, the correlation between structural coherence and memorability or the strife for meaning – are in tune with empirical findings. The goal of the article, however, is not to develop a theory that is able to predict the mnestic processes triggered by a given text. On the contrary, it uses theory as a heuristic tool that is meant to be transformed by each reading. Wherea
虽然关于创伤经历或身份建构等主题，讲故事和记忆之间的一般联系经常被强调，但几乎没有任何研究分析支撑文学文本叙事情节阅读的健忘表现。为了让故事有意义，读者必须记住之前的事件，从而能够理解冲突是如何产生和解决的。如果这个事实太明显了，不需要任何质疑，那么当涉及长篇小说文本时，与情节相关的记忆过程就会变得相当复杂。在这种情况下，阅读相当于一种记忆的练习，而写作则成为一种处理和引导读者记忆的方式。本文提出一种利用记忆理论，即利用记忆理论。叙事性文本如何在读者的记忆中创造一系列事件。此外，它认为雇佣记忆是隐含读者的一个维度，它可以在文本层面上进行分析。本文的第一部分收集了这样一个理论的元素和线索，首先考察了亚里士多德《诗学》中规定的悲剧神话必须易于记忆的规则(eumnēmoneuton)。正如著名的动物身体比喻所表明的那样，理想悲剧情节的有限延伸和整体结构都使观众忘记了事件之间的联系。因此，悲剧的可理解性和宣泄作用依赖于一种失忆活动。但是，悲剧必须通过情节的内部结构和有限的规模来让人记住，而史诗可以使用倒叙和总结等叙事技巧来理解更长的时间跨度。在他的叙事欲望理论中，彼得·布鲁克斯以这些见解为基础，将情节设想为一个充满期待和回顾的动态过程，其中大量涉及读者的记忆。对布鲁克斯来说，运用记忆相当于对意义的热情追求:叙事张力意味着，只要情节尚未结束，一种心理需求就会阻止读者忘记。文章的叙事结构越连贯，运用记忆的活动就越强烈。文章的理论部分总结了一些来自经验心理学领域的研究，这些研究涉及故事的回忆。事实证明，从亚里士多德和布鲁克斯那里得到的基本假设——比如记忆对于理解叙事的重要性，结构一致性和记忆性之间的相关性，以及对意义的争夺——与实证结果是一致的。然而，本文的目的并不是开发一种能够预测由给定文本触发的记忆过程的理论。相反，它将理论作为一种启发式工具，意在通过每次阅读进行转化。第一部分构建了情节相关记忆的启发式模型，第二部分旨在解释其在不同文本和语境中的特殊性。其目的是通过考察三部浪漫小说和小说中情节和记忆的相互作用来充实雇佣记忆理论。叙事文本产生的记忆和遗忘过程取决于情节结构、叙事技巧和文化因素。第一个案例研究是献给你的，你是狮子的骑士，由chrametien de Troyes。这部12世纪的浪漫小说不仅讲述了一个关于遗忘和记忆的故事——伊万没有遵守妻子劳丁设定的最后期限，然后努力弥补自己——而且还在叙事层面上解决了记忆的问题。虽然主人公一开始就忘记了他与劳丁的约会，但读者的视角总是坚定地站在记忆的一边。这种效应是通过话语和故事时间之间的差异度量以及部分和整体之间的镜像关系来实现的，这证明了记忆在克氏文本中具有巨大的价值论和伦理威望。Rodríguez de Montalvo漫长的爱情Amadís de Gaula是第二个案例研究的中心。可以看出，Amadís涉及到两种被运用的记忆和两套相应的叙事策略。这部浪漫小说的情节元素让读者在几百页的篇幅里回忆起一些小事件，但它们几乎没有任何记忆技巧的提示，因为情节的可理解性得到了保证——即使在实际遗忘的情况下——通过同样的图式模式的不断重复。然而，在建立连贯因果链的叙事线索的情况下，记忆不是一种选择，而是绝对必要的。 这就是为什么叙述者会给出大量的记忆技巧评论，以帮助读者将相应的事件联系在一起。最后一个案例研究的重点是歌德的《威廉·迈斯特的学徒》。男主角的发展取决于他对童年时期的某些事件的生动记忆，并根据他的婴儿印象产生新的体验。虽然读者被要求在心理因果关系的层面上与威廉一起记忆，但歌德的小说还在人物之间建立了一个符号关系的网络，这是读者完全可以理解的。这个网络包含了一种同时感，并以共时性的纪念维度补充了情节的线性顺序。文章的结论提出了进一步研究的观点，并认为雇佣记忆可能对记忆的文化话语做出反应。叙事性文本鼓励记忆和遗忘的某些做法，因此可以理解为对文化和政治辩论的干预。
{"title":"Plotting Memory. What Are We Made to Remember When We Read Narrative Texts?","authors":"M. Mühlbacher","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2024","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While the general link between storytelling and remembering has often been underlined with regard to such topics as traumatic experience or the construction of identity, there are hardly any studies that analyse the mnestic performance that underpins the reading of narrative plots in literary texts. In order for a story to create meaning, the reader has to remember earlier events, thus becoming able to understand how conflicts arise and are resolved. If this fact seems much too obvious to require any questioning, the process of plot-related remembering takes on considerable complexity when it comes to long novelistic texts. In these cases, reading amounts to an exercise in remembering and writing becomes a way of addressing and guiding the reader’s memory. This article proposes a theory of emplotted memory, i. e. of how narrative texts create a sequence of events in the memory of the reader. It argues, furthermore, that emplotted remembering is a dimension of implied readership and that it can be analysed on a textual level. Gathering elements and cues for such a theory, the first section of the article begins with an examination of the rule laid down in Aristotle’s Poetics that the mythos of tragedy has to be easily rememberable (eumnēmoneuton). As the famous analogy of the animal body suggests, both the limited extension and the holistic structure of the ideal tragic plot prevent the audience from forgetting how events tie in with each other. The very intelligibility and the cathartic effect of tragedy hence depend on a mnestic activity. But whereas tragedy has to become rememberable by means of the plot’s inner structure and limited size alone, epic can use narrative techniques such as flashbacks and summaries in order to comprehend a much longer time span. In his theory of narrative desire, Peter Brooks builds on these insights and conceives plot as a dynamic process of anticipation and retrospection that heavily involves the reader’s memory. For Brooks, emplotted remembering amounts to a passionate quest for meaning: Narrative tension implies that a psychic need prevents the reader from forgetting as long as the end of the plot has not been reached. The more coherent the narrative structure of the text, the more intense the activity of emplotted remembering will be. The theoretical section of the article concludes with a review of some studies from the field of empirical psychology that have addressed the recall of stories. It turns out that the basic assumptions derived from Aristotle and Brooks – such as the importance of remembering for the comprehension of narrative, the correlation between structural coherence and memorability or the strife for meaning – are in tune with empirical findings. The goal of the article, however, is not to develop a theory that is able to predict the mnestic processes triggered by a given text. On the contrary, it uses theory as a heuristic tool that is meant to be transformed by each reading. Wherea","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":"48926803","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 With a view to extending and enriching the vibrant, ongoing debate about migration and literature, this article makes an attempt to define »migration writing«. Using three perspectives – the theme-oriented, ethnic-oriented and text-oriented approaches – the paper examines the concept of »migration writing« in relation to other literary terms. Therefore, the starting point for the discussion is a brief comparison of migration writing with autobiography, travel writing and postcolonial literature. Then some useful comparisons are made to other related literary concepts, such as exile literature, refugee literature, foreigners’ literature, guest worker literature, Kanake literature, »allochthonous« literature, ethnic literature, minority literature, diasporic literature, hyphenated literature, multicultural literature, intercultural literature, émigré literature/emigrant literature, immigrant literature, migrant literature, the literature of migration. From these concepts, there emanates what I call »migration writing«. The label is used by me as a term for a whole variety of different types of literary and non-literary texts that have been published since the 1990s. These texts either tackle the topic of migration or emerge from the experience of migration (but not necessarily address the subject of migration). It is also not necessary for the author to be a migrant: it is enough that his or her work is inspired or influenced by the experience of migration and is imbued with a vision of cosmopolitan, transnational, hybrid society and the globalised world. Given the large scope of this definition, it seems best to define the genre as a constellation of many different types of text which are connected to one another by a set of characteristic features. Some of these features include: the real-life nature of the writing, creolization and multilingualism in the text, references to multiple cultures and/or geographic locations, impact of the Internet and online communication on the structure of the work, common themes and motifs. The article ends by illuminating the research potential of migration writing. Among other things, it gives highly informative accounts of migration experience, exposes the stereotypical representations of migrants, gives piercing insights into migrants’ host and home cultures, explores the issues of identity, nationality, borders and belonging, provides alternative knowledge about current social and cultural transformations. Acting as a counterweight to the dominant narratives, migration texts often make visible the phenomena that are unintentionally ignored or wilfully excluded from the mainstream public discourse. Consequently, they provide alternative knowledge that can be a useful research material in all kinds of areas, such as sociological, political, economic or culture studies.
{"title":"Defining Migration Writing","authors":"Joanna Kosmalska","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With a view to extending and enriching the vibrant, ongoing debate about migration and literature, this article makes an attempt to define »migration writing«. Using three perspectives – the theme-oriented, ethnic-oriented and text-oriented approaches – the paper examines the concept of »migration writing« in relation to other literary terms. Therefore, the starting point for the discussion is a brief comparison of migration writing with autobiography, travel writing and postcolonial literature. Then some useful comparisons are made to other related literary concepts, such as exile literature, refugee literature, foreigners’ literature, guest worker literature, Kanake literature, »allochthonous« literature, ethnic literature, minority literature, diasporic literature, hyphenated literature, multicultural literature, intercultural literature, émigré literature/emigrant literature, immigrant literature, migrant literature, the literature of migration. From these concepts, there emanates what I call »migration writing«. The label is used by me as a term for a whole variety of different types of literary and non-literary texts that have been published since the 1990s. These texts either tackle the topic of migration or emerge from the experience of migration (but not necessarily address the subject of migration). It is also not necessary for the author to be a migrant: it is enough that his or her work is inspired or influenced by the experience of migration and is imbued with a vision of cosmopolitan, transnational, hybrid society and the globalised world. Given the large scope of this definition, it seems best to define the genre as a constellation of many different types of text which are connected to one another by a set of characteristic features. Some of these features include: the real-life nature of the writing, creolization and multilingualism in the text, references to multiple cultures and/or geographic locations, impact of the Internet and online communication on the structure of the work, common themes and motifs. The article ends by illuminating the research potential of migration writing. Among other things, it gives highly informative accounts of migration experience, exposes the stereotypical representations of migrants, gives piercing insights into migrants’ host and home cultures, explores the issues of identity, nationality, borders and belonging, provides alternative knowledge about current social and cultural transformations. Acting as a counterweight to the dominant narratives, migration texts often make visible the phenomena that are unintentionally ignored or wilfully excluded from the mainstream public discourse. Consequently, they provide alternative knowledge that can be a useful research material in all kinds of areas, such as sociological, political, economic or culture studies.","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":"43735831","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 Debates about authorship in cinema have held a privileged position in film studies since the 1950s, when the young generation of critics of the film journal Cahiers du Cinema formulated the politique des auteurs. This critical strategy proposed that the director of a film was the major creative source of the finished work. Since this assumption contradicts the industrial and collaborative character of the film medium, the politique has been questioned, attacked and reformulated ever since its beginnings. The auteur theory was appropriated and deconstructed under the influence of structuralist and poststructuralist theories that questioned the very concepts of individual creativity and self-expression. Nevertheless, questions about authorship in cinema did not vanish but were developed in many ways. If film is regarded not only as an art form but as a commodity, the director’s name cannot only be regarded as a sign of a discernible style (a ›world view‹), but as a brand name. ›Scorsese‹, ›Tarantino‹, ›Lynch‹, ›Nolan‹ – these names imply certain images, dramatic approaches, and themes. They also serve as a label for marketing a product. Directors and producers like Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott lend their names to a certain kind of media production (film or television series) that raises expectations associated with their work. They do not necessarily work as a director. As producers – or even only as the owners of a production company – they may function as a kind of team leader, leaving the creative work to hired teams. In television, the showrunner is the major creative and managing force in the production of a series that is scripted, shot, and directed by several production crews simultaneously. Film and media studies have sought to discern the structures of collective working from historical and contemporary perspectives. Bordwell and others have described the (Hollywood) system and its mode of production, that defined the auteurs’ work. When looking closer at ›the system‹, it becomes obvious that there are different kinds of authorship in existence. Recent production studies on the working conditions in todays’ television have sought to analyse the structures of working together and ask questions about individual agency. The growing awareness of collective authorship promotes new ways of close film analysis. The German television series Babylon Berlin here serves as an example of a major contemporary media production with multiple creative influences and explicit collective authorship. A closer look at the successful series reveals the impact of this plurality on its storytelling and form.
{"title":"Konzepte singulärer und pluraler Autorschaft in Filmkritik und Filmproduktion","authors":"W. Kamp","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2019","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Debates about authorship in cinema have held a privileged position in film studies since the 1950s, when the young generation of critics of the film journal Cahiers du Cinema formulated the politique des auteurs. This critical strategy proposed that the director of a film was the major creative source of the finished work. Since this assumption contradicts the industrial and collaborative character of the film medium, the politique has been questioned, attacked and reformulated ever since its beginnings. The auteur theory was appropriated and deconstructed under the influence of structuralist and poststructuralist theories that questioned the very concepts of individual creativity and self-expression. Nevertheless, questions about authorship in cinema did not vanish but were developed in many ways. If film is regarded not only as an art form but as a commodity, the director’s name cannot only be regarded as a sign of a discernible style (a ›world view‹), but as a brand name. ›Scorsese‹, ›Tarantino‹, ›Lynch‹, ›Nolan‹ – these names imply certain images, dramatic approaches, and themes. They also serve as a label for marketing a product. Directors and producers like Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott lend their names to a certain kind of media production (film or television series) that raises expectations associated with their work. They do not necessarily work as a director. As producers – or even only as the owners of a production company – they may function as a kind of team leader, leaving the creative work to hired teams. In television, the showrunner is the major creative and managing force in the production of a series that is scripted, shot, and directed by several production crews simultaneously. Film and media studies have sought to discern the structures of collective working from historical and contemporary perspectives. Bordwell and others have described the (Hollywood) system and its mode of production, that defined the auteurs’ work. When looking closer at ›the system‹, it becomes obvious that there are different kinds of authorship in existence. Recent production studies on the working conditions in todays’ television have sought to analyse the structures of working together and ask questions about individual agency. The growing awareness of collective authorship promotes new ways of close film analysis. The German television series Babylon Berlin here serves as an example of a major contemporary media production with multiple creative influences and explicit collective authorship. A closer look at the successful series reveals the impact of this plurality on its storytelling and form.","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46260770","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 present article proposes, as its successively developed tool of analysis, a combination of literary, theatre historical and manuscriptological approaches, which then reveal the extent to which the study of written artefacts may further our understanding of collaborative models of (literary) creation, analysed along with their corresponding practices. Authorship is often understood, on the one hand, as a discursively produced phenomenon – as an ensemble of attributes that are not only ascribed to any producer of literary texts, but are also demanded of them, and which, at the same time, are supposed to guarantee the quality of their literary ›products‹. By contrast, the present article focuses on a level of concrete practices at which, instead of a lone individual, a plurality of actors contributing to a literary text may be identified. This text, in turn, should be considered not as an inviolable work of art produced by a single entity but as an object of utility used by many, at least in those instances where it is functionally incorporated into a dynamic ensemble of technical, aesthetic and social requirements, norms and expectations, where, in other words, it becomes the basis for a theatre performance. As this article argues, the inclusive approach just described, as well as its consequences regarding questions of authorship and textual work, can be fully identified only in specific textual artefacts found at the centre of the eighteenth-century manuscript culture shaping the literary theatre of that time. Accordingly, the contrast between, on the one hand, discourses and practices (sketched more fully below) and the various understandings of authorship, on the other, can be located in historical terms: In the present article, it is sought out and analysed based on those stretches of history during which the various notions began to emerge with great formative power. In the case of the discourse of single authorship, this decisive phase is the Sturm und Drang period with its concurrent aesthetics of genius; the corresponding practice is that of a wholly literary theatre, already mentioned, which is founded on a dramatic text now considered binding; and the corresponding textual artefact is the prompt book, which adapts that textual foundation to the needs of a theatrical production (and which, at that time, is often the only book containing all of the dramatic text). Ultimately, this article is focused on the hypothesis that, upon closer consideration of the materiality of the textual artefact, the dramatic text, which usually is considered the work of a single auctorial consciousness, may reasonably prove a work of many hands. And indeed, various actors contribute, by different theatrical and manuscript practices, to the adaptation of the dramatic text to the conditions and requirements of the stage, without being placed, however, in a position of authorship comparable to that of the ›classic‹ author. More often than not, they r
摘要本文提出，作为其相继发展的分析工具，将文学、戏剧历史和手稿学方法相结合，从而揭示了对书面作品的研究可以在多大程度上加深我们对（文学）创作合作模式的理解，并对其进行分析和相应的实践。一方面，作者身份通常被理解为一种话语产生的现象——一种属性的集合，这些属性不仅属于文学文本的任何生产者，而且也是对他们的要求，同时也应该保证他们文学›产品的质量。相比之下，本文关注的是一个具体实践的层面，在这个层面上，可以识别出对文学文本做出贡献的多个行动者，而不是单个个体。反过来，本文本不应被视为一个单一实体制作的不可侵犯的艺术作品，而应被视为由许多人使用的实用对象，至少在其功能上被纳入技术、美学和社会要求、规范和期望的动态集合的情况下是如此，换言之，它成为戏剧表演的基础。正如这篇文章所说，只有在18世纪手稿文化中心发现的特定文本文物中，才能完全确定刚才描述的包容性方法，以及它对作者和文本工作问题的影响，这些手稿文化塑造了当时的文学戏剧。因此，一方面，话语和实践（下文将更全面地概述）与对作者的各种理解之间的对比，可以从历史的角度来定位：在本文中，它是基于那些历史时期的，在这些时期，各种概念开始以巨大的形成力出现的。在单一作者话语的情况下，这一决定性阶段是Sturm und Drang时期，它同时具有天才美学；相应的实践是一种完全的文学戏剧，如前所述，它建立在现在被认为具有约束力的戏剧文本之上；相应的文本制品是提示书，它将文本基础适应戏剧制作的需要（在当时，它往往是唯一一本包含所有戏剧文本的书）。最终，这篇文章的重点是这样一个假设，即在更仔细地考虑文本人工制品的物质性后，通常被认为是单一作者意识的作品的戏剧文本可能会合理地证明是多人的作品。事实上，不同的演员通过不同的戏剧和手稿实践，对戏剧文本的改编做出了贡献，以适应舞台的条件和要求，但没有被置于与›经典作者相当的作者地位。通常情况下，它们没有标记，只能进行区分。 g.关于它们的等级关系——通过对文物本身、使用背景和制度框架的分析。正如这一分析所表明的，基于各种戏剧内部和戏剧外部因素，使用中的提示书处于不断修订的状态。个别修订包括不同类型的更正，如删除、添加或复制，以及西方手稿文化的传统元素或剧院特有的符号和缩写。同样显而易见的是，以这种方式做出的改变绝不是最终的，但作为戏剧化的物质等价物，因此是短暂的过程，只有›在被撤销之前才有效。 e.它们随时可能再次更改。在书面记录中，这些变化通常是由几个人完成的（尤其是当一本提示书被用于几部作品时），因此可以被视为对原文的一种›更新，因为剧院专业人员会保存一本最新使用的提示书。尽管这些提示书在某种程度上是根据戏剧程序的要求而标准化的，但这些更新使每一件书面作品都个性化了，而这些书面作品又在两层材料表演中展示了它们的修订和各种动态。对戏剧性的文本进行修改有很多原因。戏剧实践的各个方面可能会发挥作用，例如当可用的演员比扮演所有角色所需的演员少时，或者当手头的文本太长，必须进行删除时。即使是诗学上的关注以及其他与戏剧美学密切相关的问题，也可能引发这样的变化。对性和暴力的戏剧化描述就是一个很好的例子，因为它们可能被处理和/或描绘得过于直接（例如。 g。
{"title":"Das umgeschriebene Genie. Zum Verhältnis von literarischem Autorschaftsdiskurs und Schriftpraktiken im Theater","authors":"Alexander Weinstock","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present article proposes, as its successively developed tool of analysis, a combination of literary, theatre historical and manuscriptological approaches, which then reveal the extent to which the study of written artefacts may further our understanding of collaborative models of (literary) creation, analysed along with their corresponding practices. Authorship is often understood, on the one hand, as a discursively produced phenomenon – as an ensemble of attributes that are not only ascribed to any producer of literary texts, but are also demanded of them, and which, at the same time, are supposed to guarantee the quality of their literary ›products‹. By contrast, the present article focuses on a level of concrete practices at which, instead of a lone individual, a plurality of actors contributing to a literary text may be identified. This text, in turn, should be considered not as an inviolable work of art produced by a single entity but as an object of utility used by many, at least in those instances where it is functionally incorporated into a dynamic ensemble of technical, aesthetic and social requirements, norms and expectations, where, in other words, it becomes the basis for a theatre performance. As this article argues, the inclusive approach just described, as well as its consequences regarding questions of authorship and textual work, can be fully identified only in specific textual artefacts found at the centre of the eighteenth-century manuscript culture shaping the literary theatre of that time. Accordingly, the contrast between, on the one hand, discourses and practices (sketched more fully below) and the various understandings of authorship, on the other, can be located in historical terms: In the present article, it is sought out and analysed based on those stretches of history during which the various notions began to emerge with great formative power. In the case of the discourse of single authorship, this decisive phase is the Sturm und Drang period with its concurrent aesthetics of genius; the corresponding practice is that of a wholly literary theatre, already mentioned, which is founded on a dramatic text now considered binding; and the corresponding textual artefact is the prompt book, which adapts that textual foundation to the needs of a theatrical production (and which, at that time, is often the only book containing all of the dramatic text). Ultimately, this article is focused on the hypothesis that, upon closer consideration of the materiality of the textual artefact, the dramatic text, which usually is considered the work of a single auctorial consciousness, may reasonably prove a work of many hands. And indeed, various actors contribute, by different theatrical and manuscript practices, to the adaptation of the dramatic text to the conditions and requirements of the stage, without being placed, however, in a position of authorship comparable to that of the ›classic‹ author. More often than not, they r","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47790798","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 explores creative collaboration as an old, yet rarely discussed problem. It is mainly focused on literature, but the questions raised as well as the results are broadly applicable to most modern artforms that are based on a strong concept of authorship. Collaborations are familiar to all artistic genres at all times, in some periods and contexts they are even prevalent. Therefore, they currently gain notable attention in many academic disciplines, especially in the humanities but also in social sciences. In recent years the notion has become popular that in a certain way all works of art are collaborative (cf. Inge 2001, 623). One of the central points the article is trying to make is that the loose application of the concept of collaboration is clouding the view onto specific practices. At the same time, it is the main reason for the present uncertainty of what an artistic collaboration actually is or how it manifests itself in the resulting work of art. Therefore, the article explores the threshold of the concept of collaboration and presents readings of a few examples that challenge the stereotype of cooperative action as a setting of shared intentionality and stable roles of action. To make the huge field of collaborations more manageable, the article proposes to divide it into two different sets of practices: The first consists of all acts that bring texts into existence. On that level of material practices there is no need to make typological distinctions between the actors involved. It is more about the way a text is produced than who claims to be the author. Hence the question is how a person writes, on which surface and under which circumstances, if alone or interacting with others. The distinction between the author and all other actors involved in the production – the secretaries, the editors, the partners, to name only a few – is made on a second tier. It is the level of representation and representational practices. To separate the level of writing (Verfasserschaft) from the level of authorship (Autorschaft) allows a more neutral perspective on collaboration, that prevents confusion of writing with its representation. Based on Pierre Bourdieu’s Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique (1972) the article proposes a praxeological approach which calls for a close look at the specific constellation of textual production. To acknowledge the symbolic value of different writing-scenes (Schreibszenen) this approach needs to be complemented by a history of reading and writing (i.a. Roger Chartier). To specify and exemplify this notion the article analyses three different settings of textual production that can all be located at the margins of collaboration. All of them show a certain way of making common practices seem extraordinary. It is not the general type of practice but the specific way it is acted out in a certain constellation that gains symbolic value. Some of the specific examples addressed are: 1) What makes Joha
本文将创造性协作作为一个古老但很少被讨论的问题进行探讨。它主要关注文学，但提出的问题以及结果广泛适用于大多数基于强烈的作者概念的现代艺术形式。在任何时候，合作都是所有艺术流派所熟悉的，在某些时期和背景下，合作甚至很普遍。因此，它们目前在许多学科，特别是在人文科学和社会科学中得到了显著的关注。近年来，在某种程度上，所有的艺术作品都是协作的(参见Inge 2001, 623)这一概念变得流行起来。本文试图提出的一个中心观点是，协作概念的松散应用使人们对具体实践的看法变得模糊不清。与此同时，这也是目前不确定艺术合作到底是什么或它如何在最终的艺术作品中表现出来的主要原因。因此，本文探讨了合作概念的阈值，并提供了几个例子的阅读，这些例子挑战了合作行动作为共同意向性和行动稳定角色设置的刻板印象。为了使庞大的合作领域更易于管理，本文建议将其分为两组不同的实践:第一组包括使文本存在的所有行为。在物质实践的那个层次上，没有必要在涉及的参与者之间做出类型区分。它更多的是关于文本产生的方式，而不是谁声称自己是作者。因此，问题是一个人是如何写作的，在什么表面上，在什么情况下，是独自一人还是与他人互动。作者和所有其他参与制作的演员之间的区别——秘书、编辑、合伙人，仅举几例——是在第二层进行的。这是表征和表征实践的水平。将写作级别(Verfasserschaft)与作者级别(Autorschaft)分开，可以让我们对协作有更中立的看法，从而防止写作与其表示形式的混淆。本文以皮埃尔·布迪厄(Pierre Bourdieu)的《实践主义的人格》(Esquisse d’une ththacimorie de la pratique, 1972)为基础，提出了一种行动学的方法，该方法要求对文本生产的特定组合进行仔细研究。为了认识不同写作场景(Schreibszenen)的象征价值，这种方法需要通过阅读和写作的历史(如罗杰·查蒂埃)来补充。为了详细说明和举例说明这一概念，本文分析了三种不同的文本生产设置，它们都可以位于合作的边缘。他们都表现出某种方式，使普通的做法看起来不寻常。它不是一般类型的实践，而是在获得象征价值的特定星座中表现出来的特定方式。一些具体的例子是:1)是什么让约翰·克里斯蒂安·格的口述如此特别，以至于在他的诗的段落中被传达出来?这是否足以让一个不知名的作家摆脱仅仅是工具而晋升为合作者?2)歌德和席勒的《Xenien》中的个别诗句可以被认为是合作的吗，即使他们只有一个人写了这些诗?换句话说，什么都不做可以被认为是一种作者行为吗?只要有一个关于共同作者身份的语境化协议?3)布莱希特的《Kriegsfibel》使用了未经许可或同意刊登在报纸上的照片，也能被认为是合作吗?意图是必要的还是有可能在不知情的情况下合作?这些问题很难明确地回答，也许甚至不可能绝对肯定地回答。但它们引发了对合作和作者的理论基础的反思，它们让我们看到了这些概念的一些轮廓，因此有助于使我们的无知具体化(罗伯特·k·默顿)。
{"title":"Nichtstun, Aufschreiben, Ausschneiden. Grenzwerte der Zusammenarbeit in der Literatur (Günther, Goethe, Schiller, Brecht)","authors":"Daniel Ehrmann","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores creative collaboration as an old, yet rarely discussed problem. It is mainly focused on literature, but the questions raised as well as the results are broadly applicable to most modern artforms that are based on a strong concept of authorship. Collaborations are familiar to all artistic genres at all times, in some periods and contexts they are even prevalent. Therefore, they currently gain notable attention in many academic disciplines, especially in the humanities but also in social sciences. In recent years the notion has become popular that in a certain way all works of art are collaborative (cf. Inge 2001, 623). One of the central points the article is trying to make is that the loose application of the concept of collaboration is clouding the view onto specific practices. At the same time, it is the main reason for the present uncertainty of what an artistic collaboration actually is or how it manifests itself in the resulting work of art. Therefore, the article explores the threshold of the concept of collaboration and presents readings of a few examples that challenge the stereotype of cooperative action as a setting of shared intentionality and stable roles of action. To make the huge field of collaborations more manageable, the article proposes to divide it into two different sets of practices: The first consists of all acts that bring texts into existence. On that level of material practices there is no need to make typological distinctions between the actors involved. It is more about the way a text is produced than who claims to be the author. Hence the question is how a person writes, on which surface and under which circumstances, if alone or interacting with others. The distinction between the author and all other actors involved in the production – the secretaries, the editors, the partners, to name only a few – is made on a second tier. It is the level of representation and representational practices. To separate the level of writing (Verfasserschaft) from the level of authorship (Autorschaft) allows a more neutral perspective on collaboration, that prevents confusion of writing with its representation. Based on Pierre Bourdieu’s Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique (1972) the article proposes a praxeological approach which calls for a close look at the specific constellation of textual production. To acknowledge the symbolic value of different writing-scenes (Schreibszenen) this approach needs to be complemented by a history of reading and writing (i.a. Roger Chartier). To specify and exemplify this notion the article analyses three different settings of textual production that can all be located at the margins of collaboration. All of them show a certain way of making common practices seem extraordinary. It is not the general type of practice but the specific way it is acted out in a certain constellation that gains symbolic value. Some of the specific examples addressed are: 1) What makes Joha","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45312937","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：