The Approaches from National Literature to World Literature

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Wensheng Deng ◽  
Fuyang Xia ◽  
Li Chen
TEKNOSASTIK ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Dina Amelia

There are two most inevitable issues on national literature, in this case Indonesian literature. First is the translation and the second is the standard of world literature. Can one speak for the other as a representative? Why is this representation matter? Does translation embody the voice of the represented? Without translation Indonesian literature cannot gain its recognition in world literature, yet, translation conveys the voice of other. In the case of production, publication, or distribution of Indonesian Literature to the world, translation works can be very beneficial. The position of Indonesian literature is as a part of world literature. The concept that the Western world should be the one who represent the subaltern can be overcome as long as the subaltern performs as the active speaker. If the subaltern remains silent then it means it allows the “representation” by the Western.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-349
Author(s):  
Blaž Zabel

Abstract This article discusses the work of the early Irish comparatists Hutcheson Macaulay Posnett, who in 1886 published the first monograph in English in comparative literature. By bringing into discussion Posnett’s lesser-known journalistic publications on politics, the essay argues that his comparative project was importantly determined by the contemporary challenges of British imperial politics and by his own position in the British Empire. The article investigates several aspects of Posnett’s work in the context of British colonialism: his understanding of literature and literary criticism, his perception of the English and French systems of national literature, and his understanding of world literature and classical literature. Recognising the imperial and colonial context of Comparative Literature additionally highlights the development of literary comparisons, which have marked subsequent discussions in the discipline.


2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-71
Author(s):  
Oana Popescu-Sandu

Abstract This essay examines how translingual poetry by immigrant Romanian writers who live in or travel to the United States requires a transnational community framing rather than a national one and raises new questions about cultural and linguistic identity formation that reflect on both national and world literature issues. This analysis of the Romanian-American contemporary poets Mihaela Moscaliuc, Andrei Guruianu, Claudia Serea, and Aura Maru uses literary and rhetorical translingual theory to show that the “national literature” framing is no longer sufficient to address works created between two languages in a globalized world—Romanian and English, in this case. Born between two cultures and languages, their poetry does not belong entirely to either. In its turn, the national framing—both the Romanian and the American one—can become more porous and inclusive if read through a sociolinguistic “regime of mobility” (Blommaert) lens that gives a more powerful voice to migrant writers.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-51
Author(s):  
Satoru Hashimoto

While the discourse of national literature was fully espoused in modern China, many Chinese classics were transposed into Europe and had a unique impact on European modernist literature. Overshadowed by these oft-discussed dynamics are Chinese modernists’ own engagements with the nation’s classics. Focusing on Daodejing, the foundational work of the Daoist canon, this paper compares Lu Xun’s modernist retelling of the legend of the birth of Daodejing with Walter Benjamin’s commentary on Bertolt Brecht’s poem featuring the same anecdote. This paper argues that both works, by reconstructing the scene of Daodejing’s first inscription, engage with this text in its lost original moment, which precedes any national identification. They open the text up to other configurations, thereby projecting alternative literary worlds. This paper thus questions the dominant conception of world literature as consisting of the circulation of nationally identified works of literature.


2021 ◽  
pp. 37-51

The article deals with the analysis of modern scientific approaches to critical studies. The current importance of the science of literature critical studies has been analyzed from different perspectives. The author tries to justify in which issues of literature the perspective of this field is more important. There are also the peculiarities of the methodology of science, the main scientific directions and ideas about the name of the discipline. Special emphasis was placed on national comparative studies. It is well known that literature critical studies as an independent branch of science emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. The uniqueness of this field is that it determines the place and contribution of national literatures to world civilization by comparing them with each other. There are relatively little-studied areas of literature critical studies in our country. Some foreign experts are trying to prove that the head of the discipline has stuck in a dead end having no perspectives. Comparison in the broadest sense is the process of perceiving the commonalities and differences of life events. However, the function of this discipline is not limited to finding the properties in X and in Y. In fact, what is the importance of literature critical studies as a science today? The article is devoted to a critical assessment of this issue from different perspectives. The peculiarities of the formation of the discipline are also analyzed. It is claimed that the task of the article is to teach students to use theoretical knowledge, practical skills, modern comparative methods and techniques, to distinguish between national and cultural features of the studied literature, to understand the relationship of national literature with world literature and to draw conclusions based on the analysis.


Author(s):  
Tоrtkulbaeva T.A

There are analyzed characteristic features of Kazakh folklore which are performed by poets and zhyraus (bards) in the territory of Karakalpakstan. In this article we tried to analyze characteristic features of Kazakh folklore which are performed by poets and zhyraus (bards) in the territory of Karakalpakstan. The aim of this article is to reveal the peculiarities of coexistence and relations between Kazakh, Uzbek and Karakalpak folklore and literature on the base of studying the development of tutor-apprentice traditional methods of poetical and performing skills of Kazakh poets and zhiraus (performers of folk creative works-poems, eposes, etc. in the own accompaniment in dombra, a national two-stringed musical instrument) in Karakalpakstan. KEYWORDS: Kazakh poets and jyraus; folklore; comparative analyses; national literature; regional literature; world literature; culture; interrelations; eposes


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-411
Author(s):  
Richard Hibbitt

In 1909 André Gide published three short articles in the journal La Nouvelle Revue française, subsequently grouped under the title ‘Nationalisme et littérature’ (Nationalism and literature). They were written as his response to a survey by the young French journalist Henri Clouard, ‘Enquête sur la littérature nationale’ (Survey on National Literature), in which contemporary writers and critics answered questions regarding possible definitions of French literature. Gide questions the value of the term ‘national literature’ and objects to the view that haute littérature (good literature) is synonymous with neo-Classical values, arguing instead for a conception of literature that embraces curiosity and innovation. For Gide the term haute littérature is problematic because it implies a hierarchical, regimented and limited view of both literature and culture tout court. The first part of this article argues that Gide's critique of both national literature and haute littérature can be read as a preference for a literariness that is liberated from the constraints of balance and imitation. The second part reads Gide's agronomic metaphor for literary innovation through the lens of Alexander Beecroft's theory of overlapping literary ecologies. Beecroft's model of different ecologies of world literature helps us to locate what I propose to be Gide's own contribution to the world literature debate: an emphasis on literariness that transcends the national-literature ecology and reclaims the notion of haute littérature for a different aesthetic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 130-151
Author(s):  
Raluca Andreia Tanasescu

This essay examines the corpus of contemporary American and Canadian poetry translated into Romanian in stand-alone volumes between 1990 and 2017 and argues that translators had a deciding impact on the selection of authors, as well as on the configuration of the overall translation network. Romanian poet-translators engaged in an outward cultural movement that galvanized both their own writing and the national literature in general. In doing so, they developed various types of agency covering a wide range of translating patters, from no agency at all to full self-reliance, and a poetics of fecundity that testifies to their engagement with global events and with the microcosm of local literature. Engendered by an assumed material precariousness and by an overt desire for permanent change and synchronous alignment with world literature, these practices should be seen from a micro-centric perspective, that is, paramount in establishing positive relationships with U.S. and Canadian poetries and energizing the local literary scene, rather than simply reflective of a ‘minor’ mode of existence in the global and geopolitical arenas.


2020 ◽  
pp. 222-236
Author(s):  
Tobias Boes

Goethe’s 1827 aphorism that ‘national literature is now a rather unmeaning term; the epoch of world literature is at hand’ is cited approvingly in virtually every critical study of the ways authors and literature move about in the world. But is it actually true? As Tobias Boes shows in this contribution, the global literature industry remains subdivided along national lines, with publishers’ catalogues, prize competitions, and trade fairs more or less resembling a ‘cultural Olympiad’. Many twenty-first-century authors struggle with this phenomenon of ‘national exemplification’, as Boes calls it, while other writers derive great commercial benefit from hitching their wagon to the destiny of a national community. This chapter explores whether national exemplification will still be the way forward as we progress into the twenty-first century.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document