BDSL-Klassifikation: 03.00.00 Literaturwissenschaft > 03.06.00 Literaturtheorie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2011 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
"Finnegans Wake" has struck many of its exegetes as the epitome of the postmodern text. The oddity of James Joyce's last work has been and still is a provocation not only for literary criticism and theory but for every reader of the work. It provokes us to reflect on our preconceptions concerning such fundamental issues as reading, meaning and understanding. Due to this very quality, the work has been a fertile intellectual stimulus for an illustrious band of thinkers of the ―post-projects. Its singularity has provoked and facilitated the further development of theoretical frameworks beyond the confines of literary theory proper. This essay will trace the elaborate theoretical responses of Umberto Eco and Jacques Lacan to Joyce's grand literary arcanum. Eco's concept of the openness of modern works of art and Lacan's elaboration of his psychoanalytic concepts of the symptom and of the Borromean knot were inspired by their study of Joyce. As an extreme instance of literariness, Finnegans Wake thus constitutes an ideal opportunity to consider the scope and boundaries of the scholarly study of literary texts more generally.
Is there something like a 'scientific' approach to the reading or interpretation of literary texts as is suggested by the German term 'Literaturwissenschaft'? This essay argues that genuinely scientific criteria such as the intersubjective verifiability of a given reading do not apply to the reading of literary texts. The reason is that such texts enable a quasi infinite range of different readings the preconceptions of which are contingent upon the individual readers, their previous experiences, literary as well as non-literary, and their expectations. — What, then, are the tasks of a scholarly reading of literary texts? Firstly, the theoretical reflection upon the status of such texts in comparison to pragmatic texts; secondly, the attempt at reconstructing their historical context (in terms of discursive history), and thirdly, a reading with regard to present-day problems. The 'quality' of a scholarly reading of a literary text would thus be dependent not on its 'objectivity', but rather on its capacity to produce resonances amongst other present-day readers, scholarly and non-scholarly.
Based on the metaphor of “liminality” in literary studies, this paper examines two different approaches to the literary genre of travelogues, using the example of Adelbert von Chamisso‟s Voyage Around the World (1836). One approach, with the help of autobiographical research, sheds light on the author-specific key motifs of “omnipotent time” and the process of aging. In the second approach, the focus shifts to the relationship between literature and natural science, i.e. to Chamisso‟s transitional position in the context of the historicization and dynamization of the sciences and humanities in the 19th century. Rather than thinking of “philology” and “cultural studies” as opposing methods, this article thus suggests a more in-tercessory position for the purpose of a fruitful study of travel literature.
This paper examines the well-known practice of developing a conceptual frame-work for reading works of literature in such a way as to illuminate previously ignored aspects of those works. It investigates the nature or genre of such discoveries: Are they philological? Hermeneutic? Do they correspond to the discipline of the framework selected? This problem is considered in the case of an example of the deployment of a very specific philosophical framework, namely the problem of skepticism as glossed by the American philosopher Stanley Cavell. This framework brings to light a structural affinity between two seemingly disparate moments in the history of German lyric poetry: the Biedermeier period and the works of Konkrete Dichtung from the mid-twentieth century. The paper postulates this affinity as an exam-ple of the kind of “discovery” whose type, usefulness, or even existence as discovery might be called into question and perhaps not, ultimately, agreed on.