Literature as Knowledge for Living, Literary Studies as Science for Living

PMLA ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 125 (4) ◽  
pp. 977-993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ottmar Ette

In 2001, the official year of the “life sciences” in germany, ottmar ette began pulling together ideas for what was to become the programmatic essay excerpted and translated here. Ette is known for different things in different places: in Spain and Hispanic America, he is renowned for his work on José Martí, Jorge Semprún, Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel García Márquez, and a host of other authors. In the francophone world, he is best known for his writings on Roland Barthes and, more recently, on Amin Maalouf, while his reputation in his native Germany rests on his voluminous work on Alexander von Humboldt and on the new literatures in German. That this polyglot professor of Romance literatures is, at heart and in practice, a comparatist goes almost without saying. He is also, perhaps as inevitably, a literary theorist and a cultural critic, whose work has attracted attention throughout Europe. In his 2004 book ÜberLebenswissen—a title that might be rendered in English both as “Knowledge for Survival” and as “About Life Knowledge”—Ette first began to reclaim for literary studies the dual concepts of Lebenswissen and Lebenswissenschaft, which I have translated provisionally as “knowledge for living” and “science for living” to set them off from the biotechnological discourses of the life sciences. While ÜberLebenswissen focuses on the disciplinary history and practices of the field of Romance literatures, its companion volume from 2005, ZwischenWeltenSchreiben: Literaturen ohne festen Wohnsitz (“Writing between Worlds: Literatures without a Fixed Abode”), extends Ette's inquiry to the global contexts of Shoah, Cuban, and Arab American literatures. Both volumes urge that literary studies “be opened up, made accessible and relevant, to the larger society. Doing so is, simply and plainly, a matter of survival” (ZwischenWeltenSchreiben 270).

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Katerina Kroucheva

Abstract This article concerns itself with Gérard Genette’s reception in Germanophone literary study. Through an analysis of the rhetorical substrate from which Genette’s terminology draws its specific tension, the article determines that Genette is not only an excessive systematist, but also and simultaneously an author who battles received attempts at order and who foregrounds doubts about the idea of order. In this way, he displays a kinship with such theorists as Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida. The receptions of the rhetorical construction of Genette’s texts and of the particular strategies of structuralism to which that construction refers did not occur synchronously in French, American, Russian, and German literary studies. The article demonstrates that, while German literary theory occasionally discusses Genette’s positioning within the field, there remains a general absence of the recognition that practically all of his books display a definite proximity to deconstruction, and that this proximity plays a central role in Genette’s enire theoretical edifice. This text is, last but not least, a call to read literary-theoretical texts in their aesthetic contexts.


PMLA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 128 (3) ◽  
pp. 698-701
Author(s):  
Anadeli Bencomo

Carlos Fuentes, like many other writers of the Boom, discussed his peers' unprecedented renovation of Latin American narrative forms—specifically, the novel (e.g., Donoso; Vargas Llosa). In La nueva novela hispanoamericana (1969; “The New Spanish American Novel”), Fuentes reviews the most influential novels of the 1960s after presenting some of the founders of the literary modernity that preceded the Boom: Jorge Luis Borges, Juan Rulfo, Miguel Angel Asturias, and Alejo Carpentier. Fuentes focuses on the Boom's protagonists—Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel García Márquez, and Julio Cortázar—to highlight his ideas about the groundbreaking contributions of these novels.


LETRAS ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Abigail Sampson

El estudio aborda el tema de la dictadora en La dama de cristal (1999), de Zelmar Acevedo Díaz (Argentina, 1951). Se comparan con otras novelas sobre el mismo tema y se examinan coincidencias o disparidades entre la representación literaria femenina y masculina del autoritarismo. La dictadura latinoamericana como fenómeno político ha persistido en América Latina con diferentes matices ideológicos. Gabriel García Márquez en El otoño del patriarca, Mario Vargas Llosa en La fiesta del Chivo o Luis Spota en El tiempo de la ira tratan este hecho para perfilar sus rasgos distintivos. Existe un caso particular en que el autoritarismo lo encarna una mujer. This study focuses on the theme of female dictator in La dama de cristal (1999), by Zelmar Acevedo Díaz (Argentina, 1951). It is compared with other novels on the same theme and an analysis is carried out of coincidences or disparities between the feminine and masculine literary representation of authoritarianism. Latin American dictatorships are a political phenomenon that has persisted in Latin America with different ideological tones. Gabriel García Márquez in El otoño del patriarca; Mario Vargas Llosa in La fiesta del Chivo or Luis Spota in El tiempo de la ira have approached this issue to profile its distinctive features. There is one particular case of a female dictator.


Author(s):  
James Risser

In the field of contemporary literary studies, the French essayist and cultural critic Roland Barthes cannot be easily classified. His early work on language and culture was strongly influenced by the intellectual currents of existentialism and Marxism that were dominant in French intellectual life in the mid-twentieth century. Gradually his work turned more to semiology (a general theory of signs), which had a close association with the structuralist tradition in literary criticism. In his later work, Barthes wrote more as a post-structuralist than as a structuralist in an attempt to define the nature and authority of a text. Throughout his writings Barthes rejected the ‘naturalist’ view of language, which takes the sign as a representation of reality. He maintained that language is a dynamic activity that dramatically affects literary and cultural practices.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Emily Sun

The Introduction situates the book’s approach to comparative literature in relation to recent debates in the field over the status of “world literature.” It historicizes the notion of world literature in terms of the global disciplinary history of literary studies, contextualizing redefinitions of literature and efforts to write literary modernity in terms of connected yet heterogeneous epistemic shifts in eighteenth-century Europe and early twentieth-century China. It introduces the design of the book and offers chapter summaries. And it explains how efforts to write literary modernity in the asynchronous periods of Romantic England and Republican China constitute experiments also with new socio-political forms of life in different cultural contexts.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernat Castany Prado

La intensificación de las interrelaciones entre las diversas partes del mundo, conocida como globalización, ha generado un cierto desgaste del estado nación, que hasta entonces fue la principal unidad política, social, cultural e identitaria. La literatura parece haberse adelantado a las ciencias sociales en la búsqueda de descripciones y construcciones identitariaa más respetuosas con la irreductible complejidad del mundo y de las personas que lo habitan. Las obras de Salma Rushdie, Claudio Magris, Amin Maalouf, amos Oz, Orhan Pamuk, Milán Kundera, W.G. Sebald, Haruki Murakami, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Luis Borges o Paul Smaïl, entre muchos otros, generan en la mente de sus lectores una comunidad imaginada mundial en la cual ni la representación estética ni la responsabilidad moral y política se detiene en las fronteras nacionales.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ikwan Setiawan

This article deals with Roland Barthes’ mythological thinking and its methodological implication in literary studies. Its basic thinking is that in various modes of representation exist the dynamics of mythical signification using denotative signification as its basic and aims to address particular message to readers or viewers. Such signification intertwines with the complexity of discourses, histories, knowledge, and problems in the real life. Its final goal is to depoliticize and ex-nominates making something nameless dominant political interest in narrative naturally. Barthes also conceptualizes an idea on second myth that uses (the first) myth as its basis of signifying process to subvert the dominant class’ political interest. For explaining the contributions of these two mythological perspectives in literary studies, I give conceptualize method of analysis using both of them. As concluding remarks, I position Barthes’ mythological thinking as a theoretical framework which can avoid literary studies from over intervention of outside-literary factors political economy, general theories, etc. that make the studies seem losing their narrative base. Because Barthes’ perspective emphasizes on reading of narrative dynamics without negating exploration of discursive richness in signifying process, naturalization of ideological discourses, and ex-nomination of particular political interest.AbstrakTulisan ini membahas pemikiran mitologis Roland Barthes serta implikasi metodologisnya dalam kajian sastra. Inti dari pemikirannya adalah bahwa dalam beragam moda representasi berlangsung dinamika penandaan mitis yang menggunakan penandaan denotatif sebagai basisnya dan bertujuan menyampaikan pesan tertentu kepada pembaca ataupun penonton. Penandaan tersebut berjalin-kelindan dengan kompleksitas wacana, sejarah, pengetahuan, dan permasalahan dalam kehidupan nyata. Tujuan akhirnya adalah untuk mendepolitisasi dan mengeksnominasi menjadikan sesuatu tak bernama kepentingan politik dominan dalam narasi secara alamiah. Barthes juga mengkonseptualisasikan gagasan tentang mitos kedua yang menggunakan mitos (pertama) sebagai basis proses penandaan untuk mensubversi kepentingan politik kelas dominan. Untuk menjelaskan implikasi metodologis kedua perspektif mitologis tersebut dalam kajian sastra, saya mengkonseptuliasikan metode analisis dengan menggunakan keduanya. Sebagai simpulan, saya memosisikan pemikiran mitologis Barthes sebagai kerangka teoretis yang bisa menghindarkan kajian sastra dari intervensi berlebihan dari faktor-faktor di luar sastra faktor ekonomi-politik, teori-teori umum, dan lain-lain yang menjadikan kajian tersebut tampak kehilangan pijakan naratif. Karena perspektif Barthes menekankan kepada pembacaan dinamika naratif dalam kerangka penandaan tanpa mengabaikan eksplorasi kekayaan diskursif dalam proses penandaan, naturalisasi wacana ideologis, dan eks-nominasi kepentingan politik partikular. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document