Literature

54 quotes found

"The second essay, by Dominick LaCapra, also takes up the theme of repetition as it asks what makes a legal trial worth remembering. Focusing on the nineteenth-century trials of Flaubert and Baudelaire for “outrage to public and religious morality and to good morals,” LaCapra demonstrates that the aesthetic standard used to judge these writers demanded that a work of art provide “purely symbolic and ‘spiritual’ resolution of the problems it explored.” Flaubert and Baudelaire were, in essence, subject to criminal prosecution for their commitment to literary realism that led them to flour some of the representational taboos of their time. Yet in LaCapra’s view their trials were not, in a strict sense, show trials whose purpose was to instill a broad, collective memory. They were not designed to recall from the past events that “insistently made demands on collective and individual remembrance and thus necessitated entry into the public sphere.” They were instead intended to create a memory of the consequences that would attach to writers who transgressed public norms and whose “deviant” work might have a broad public impact. LaCapra worries about the use of law for such memorial purposes, and he notes the continuing controversy over whether histiography has the function of transmitting memory. In his own view history has two related objectives, namely the adjudication of truth claims about the past and the transmission of memory. It is, however, the memory of the criminal trial, especially those in which literature is put on trial, to which LaCapra calls out attention. Such trials raise questions about how literary texts can be read in particular contexts, and they call on us to remember the situatedness and contingency of all readings. When faced with literary texts that are in some sense transgressive, law, LaCapra suggests, will read through the lens of its own reconstructions of the past-through precedent-and, as a result, will read in a regulative, normalizing way. Law will seek to protect the literary canon and repress the more disconcerting features of literature in order to make it a vehicle for the promotion of conventional social values. Yet this kind of reading, a reading that serves to commemorate convention, defeats literature. LaCapra calls for a kind of literary privilege in which what the law may justifiably prohibit in social life should not be prohibited in art or literature. Art could thus serve society as a safe haven for exploration and experimentation."

- Literature

0 likesLiterature
"LaCapra notes that in the trials of Flaubert and Baudelaire, while both the prosecution and the defense insisted on a view of the role of literature in society that was “conventionalizing, normalizing, and domesticating,” this was especially true of the defense. In each trial the defense of literature denied its experimental or transgressive character and insisted on its role in commemorating conventional values. Although Flaubert and Baudelaire put into practice immanent critique of the social and literary conditions of their time, this critique could find no voice in a court of law. This essay calls on us to remember the trials of these two great writers for what they reveal about the “variable historical manner in which literary’ experimentation . . . is bound up with broader political, legal, and sociocultural issues in the production, reception, and critical reading of texts.” With respect to the place of memory, LaCapra suggests that law, at least the law of crime, resists the transmission of particular understandings of literature, for example, of its transgressive, experimental value. Those seeking to use law to memorialize such understandings are regularly defeated. Unlike Felman, who sees law insatiating memory in uncanny ways, LaCaptra finds no such subversive potential in the trials of literature. He insists that law constrains memory and remembrance in a relatively predictable manner and points to the limits to which law as archive can be put."

- Literature

0 likesLiterature
"The importance of distinguishing between literary and genre fiction is highlighted by scholarship that draws from both literary studies and psychological theory. Genre fiction is defined primarily by its focus on a particular topic and reliance on relatively formulaic plots. By contrast, literary fiction is defined more by its aesthetic qualities and character development than its focus on plot or a particular set of topics and themes. This distinction is recognized by publishers, who routinely list it as a publishing category; and by critics, who award separate prizes for specific genres (e.g., the Hugo awards for fantasy and the Nebula awards for science fiction), as well as prizes for general literary quality (e.g., the PEN/O. Henry Prize and the National Book Award for fiction). The distinction has also been put in terms of what attracts readers to the work: entertainment and escape for genre fiction, understanding and engagement for literary fiction (Petite, 2014). Empirical research appears to bear this out. A study of adult readers found that readers of primarily literary, romance, or mystery fiction value different features. Readers of literary fiction, compared to the others, indicated greater appreciation for figurative language (e.g., metaphor), multiple plot lines, many possible meanings, opportunities for imaginative interpretation, several shifting perspectives, and character development (Miesen, 2004). Although there are certainly exceptions and ambiguous cases, industry, critics, and ordinary readers appear to agree that literary fiction generally affords greater opportunities for interpretive engagement than more formulaic genres."

- Literature

0 likesLiterature