Documentos de apoyo y enlaces

A. EL COMPONENTE DISCIPLINARIO: ¿Qué es la literature comparada?

B. EL COMPONENTE METODOLÓGICO TEÓRICO-CRÍTICO GENERAL.

C. EL COMPONENTE TEÓRICO-CRÍTICO ESPECÍFICO: La(s) narratología(s).

D. "CAT PERSON" DE KRISTEN ROUPENIAN. THE NEW YORKER 2017.

E. PREMISAS/DEFINICIONES/DISTINCIONES DE BASE DEL CURSO.

***F. ARCHIVOS: GRUPOS 1 [LISTADO] Y 2 [ÍCONOS].

A. EL COMPONENTE DISCIPLINARIO: ¿Qué es la literature comparada?

TEMA (1): Definición identitaria y demarcación territorial: Introducción a la literatura comparada como disciplina y al comparatismo como método de análisis e investigación: tentativas de "definición".

MATERIAL DE APOYO:

A.] Documento: "Montaje de definiciones". <analizar las definiciones a partir de los siguientes criterios: tipo de disciplina, objeto de estudio, metas u objetivos, metodología, requisitos, consideraciones filosóficas o políticas, vínculo con otras disciplinas, supuestos ideológicos, afiliaciones intelectuales, proyectos, otro>.

B.] ***PARA BIBLIOGRAFÍAS MÁS COMPLETAS, VER:

(1) LITE6007BIBLIOLITECOMP.docx [EN EL ARCHIVO: GRUPO 1 (LISTADO) AL PIE DE ESTA PÁGINA.]

(2) Totosy.Biblio for work in comp lit and culture.vers2016 [EN ESTE ENLACE Y EN EL ARCHIVO: GRUPO 1 (LISTADO) AL PIE DE ESTA PÁGINA.]

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=clcweblibrary

Bibliography for Work in Comparative Literature and Culture. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek. version 2016.09.14.

"The study of literature becomes comparative when it breaks over the walls of linguistic ignorance, of provincial prejudice and sectional animosity, merging national into international expressions of living endeavor. Its duty is to gather, sort, grade and combine the literature of all languages, so as to discover and formulate its purport, meaning, and trend, summing up its differences, similarities and significance for the guidance of the lives of men and women who wish to live in the light of their humanity, rather than in that of their unavoidable provincial affiliations." (Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. The Spiritual Message of Literature: A Manual of Comparative Literature with Topical Outlines and Lists of Useful Books for School, College, and Private Use. Brooklyn: Comparative Literature Press, 1913. i.)

"The second principle of comparative cultural studies is the theoretical as well as methodological postulate to move and to dialogue between cultures, languages, literatures, and disciplines. This is a crucial aspect of the framework, the approach as a whole, and its methodology. In other words, attention to other cultures—that is, the comparative perspective—is a basic and founding element and factor of the framework. The claim of emotional and intellectual primacy and subsequent institutional power of national cultures is untenable in this perspective. In turn, the built-in notions of exclusion and self-referentiality of single culture study and their result of rigidly defined disciplinary boundaries are notions against which comparative cultural studies offers an alternative as well as a parallel field of study. This inclusion extends to all Other, all marginal, minority, border, and peripheral and it encompasses both form and substance. However, attention must be paid to the 'how' of any inclusionary approach, attestation, methodology, and ideology so as not to repeat the mistakes of Eurocentrism and 'universalization' from a 'superior' Eurocentric point of view. Dialogue is the only solution." (Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 1.3 [1999]

https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=clcweb

Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. "From Comparative Literature Today toward Comparative Cultural Studies." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 1.3 [1999]: Volume 1 Issue 3 (September 1999) Article 2. Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, "From Comparative Literature Today Toward Comparative Cultural Studies". <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol1/iss3/2> Contents of CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 1.3 (1999) <http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol1/iss3/>

Abstract: In his article "From Comparative Literature Today Toward Comparative Cultural Studies" Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek proposes a theoretical approximation of already established and current aspects of the discipline of comparative literature and the field of cultural studies. "Comparative cultural studies" is conceived as an approach with three areas of theoretical content: 1) To studyliterature (text and/or literary system) with and in the context of culture and the discipline of cultural studies; 2) In cultural studies itself to study literature with borrowed elements (theories and methods) from comparative literature; and 3) To study culture and its composite parts and aspects in the mode of the proposed "comparative cultural studies" approach instead of the currently reigning singlelanguage approach dealing with a topic with regard to its nature and problematics in one culture only.

At the same time, comparative cultural studies would implicitly and explicitly disrupt the established hierarchy of cultural products and production similarly to the disruption cultural studies itself has performed. The suggestion is to pluralize and paralellize the study of culture without hierarchization.

The article contains brief descriptions of recent volumes in comparative literature across the globe and closes with a ten-point draft proposal of the how of scholarship in comparative cultural studies.

TEMA (2): Historia/desarrollo de la disciplina.

Esquema evolutivo I:

Panorama histórico y evolución del término y de la disciplina: los años ’60 y ’70. Auto-afirmación, determinación de estándares, delimitación de prácticas y protocolos institucionales.

MATERIAL DE APOYO:

Documento: "Esquema: Áreas de estudio de la literatura comparada".

Levin, Harry. “The Levin Report to the American Comparative Literature Association, 1965: Report on Professional Standards.” Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism (Baltimore and London: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995): 21-27.

Greene, Thomas. “The Greene Report to the American Comparative Literature Association, 1975: A Report on Standards.” Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism (Baltimore and London: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995): 28-38.

Esquema evolutivo II:

De los años ’90 al 2014. Hacia una disciplina sin identidad estable y sin fronteras: ¿expansión ilimitada/imperialismo disciplinario o extinción paulatina? De lo multicultural, lo inter/trans-disciplinario, lo intertextual y lo teórico a la globalización de lo literario, lo trans-nacional, la re-mediación (="transmedial"), los estudios culturales comparados, la traductología y los ecosistemas. En torno al Bernheimer Report (1993-1995), el Informe de Haun Saussy: Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization (2004-2006) y el informe más reciente: The State of the Discipline (2014-2015).

MATERIAL DE APOYO:

I [1993-1995]

Bernheimer, Charles. "Introduction: The Anxieties of Comparison. y “The Bernheimer Report, 1993. Comparative Literature at the Turn of the Century.” Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism. Ed. Charles Bernheimer. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1995): 1-17; 39-48.

Bernheimer Report: Comparative Literature in an Age of Multiculturalism (1993-1995): The Bernheimer Report, named after its primary author Charles Bernheimer, is a significant document in the field of Comparative Literature. It was commissioned by the Modern Language Association (MLA) in response to the growing awareness of multiculturalism's impact on literary studies. The report aimed to address the question of how Comparative Literature could evolve in an era marked by the increasing recognition of diverse cultural perspectives.

Key Points:

• Context: The report was written in the context of a changing academic landscape, with increased emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity in literary studies.

• Multiculturalism: It discussed the challenges and opportunities of incorporating multiple cultural perspectives into Comparative Literature curricula.

• Disciplinary Boundaries: The report questioned traditional disciplinary boundaries and advocated for a more flexible and interdisciplinary approach to studying literature.

• Cultural Sensitivity: Emphasized the importance of being sensitive to the cultural nuances and complexities of various literary traditions.

• Pedagogical Strategies: Proposed strategies for incorporating diverse texts, authors, and cultural contexts into Comparative Literature courses.

• Globalization: While not the primary focus, the report hinted at the broader globalization trends that were starting to impact the academic world.

According to Steven Tötösy de Zepetnek, "the main and most important feature of the volume is its aspects of and call for politically based ideology of inclusion."

Hutcheon, Linda. “Comparative Literature’s ‘Anxiogenic’ State.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée CRCL/RCLC (March/mars 1996):35-40.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

II [2004-2006]

Saussy, Haun. “Exquisite Cadavers Stitched from Fresh Nightmares. Of Memes, Hives, and Selfish Genes.” Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.): 3-42.

Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization (2004-2006) builds upon the discussions initiated by the Bernheimer Report, focusing on the challenges and opportunities brought about by globalization in the field of Comparative Literature.

Haun Saussy's work, in particular, further explores the implications of globalization on the field of Comparative Literature. Published between 2004 and 2006, Saussy's work delves into how the interconnectedness of our world impacts the study of literature and how scholars should adapt to these changes. Here are some key elaborations on the main points of the work:

1. Globalization's Impact on Literary Studies: Saussy discusses how globalization has transformed the landscape of literary studies. The increasing movement of ideas, texts, and cultures across national borders challenges traditional notions of literature as confined to specific languages and cultures.

2. Cosmopolitanism and Comparative Literature: Saussy introduces the concept of cosmopolitanism in the context of Comparative Literature. Cosmopolitanism emphasizes a global perspective that appreciates cultural diversity while recognizing shared human experiences. This approach aligns with Comparative Literature's goal of exploring commonalities and differences across literary traditions.

3. Translation and Global Exchange: Translation becomes a central theme in Saussy's work. He emphasizes the role of translation as a bridge between languages and cultures, enabling the global circulation of literary works. Translation is not just a technical process but a creative act that facilitates cross-cultural understanding.

4. Digital Media and Global Engagement: Saussy acknowledges the growing impact of digital media on Comparative Literature. Online platforms, digital archives, and digital texts enable broader access to literary works from various cultures, fostering a global literary conversation.

5. Ethics of Comparative Literature: In a globalized context, Saussy addresses the ethical dimensions of comparative analysis. He emphasizes the importance of approaching comparisons with cultural sensitivity and avoiding reductionist interpretations that ignore the complexities of individual cultures.

6. Hybrid Identities and Literature: The age of globalization has led to the emergence of hybrid identities and narratives that reflect the interconnected nature of the world. Saussy explores how these hybrid identities are represented in literature and how Comparative Literature can engage with such texts.

7. Interdisciplinary Approaches: As globalization blurs disciplinary boundaries, Saussy suggests that Comparative Literature can benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration. Incorporating insights from fields such as anthropology, sociology, and history can enrich the study of global literary dynamics.

8. Education and Pedagogy: Saussy considers the implications of globalization for pedagogy in Comparative Literature. Educators are challenged to design curricula that reflect global perspectives and equip students with the skills to navigate a multicultural literary landscape.

Overall, Haun Saussy's work reflects on how globalization has redefined the scope and objectives of Comparative Literature. It advocates for a more open, inclusive, and adaptable approach that embraces the diverse literary expressions of our interconnected world. By highlighting the importance of cosmopolitanism, translation, ethics, and interdisciplinary collaboration, Saussy's work contributes to shaping the future direction of Comparative Literature in the age of globalization.

Hutcheon, Linda. “Comparative Literature: Congenitally Contrarian.” Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.): 224-229. “Documentos y Enlaces”:

--------------------------------------------------------

EJEMPLOS DE LECTURAS CRÍTICAS/RESEÑAS:

Chen, Lihen. Review of Saussy, Haun, ed. 2006. “Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.” College Literature 36.1 (Winter 2009): 157-160.

Coopan, Vilashini. Review of Saussy, Haun, ed. 2006. “Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization.” Modern Philology 107.4 (May 2010): E147-E151.

Rigney, Ann. “Comparative Literature in an Age of Globalization: A Review.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne de Litterature Comparée, December 2008: 353-357.

Varsava, Jerry A. “Comparative Literature Without Borders: A Decennial Taking of Stock.” symploke 15.1-2 (2007) ISS: 331-340.

------------------------------------------------------

III [2014-2017]

THE 2014 - 2015 (+2016-2017) REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE: Paradigms, Futures, Ideas of the Decade, Practices, Facts & Figures. http://stateofthediscipline.acla.org

The decennial ACLA Report on the State of the Discipline appears here for the first time in digital form. It follows the printed reports from 1965 and 1975, both written, on behalf of a committee, by single authors (Harry Levin and Thomas Greene, respectively), as well as edited volumes featuring responses, written by a variety of scholars from the field, to more-or-less definitive reports written by Charles Bernheimer (published as Comparative Literature in the Age of Multiculturalism, 1994) and Haun Saussy (published as Comparative Literature in the Age of Globalization, 2006).

This Report differs from those reports in several ways. It is […] the first report to not include a single programmatic statement on the discipline of Comparative Literature. It is also the first report not to be edited by a Full Professor from an Ivy League institution; rather its Editorial Team, headed by Ursula Heise (UCLA), includes faculty from a number of public and private institutions, including one from an institution outside the United States. It is the first report to include content in a number of formats: abandoning the form taken by the previous two reports, that of the traditional, 25-30-page academic essay, it includes content in five different areas and four different genres (as well as two media, text and video), ranging from the short pieces on "Ideas of the Decade" to the longest essays on new "Paradigms" in the field. And it is also, finally, the first report to have an open call for contributions and a peer review system, allowing any ACLA member at any rank or from any institution (or indeed our members who live and work outside institutional or university frames) to participate in its production.

Futures:

*Finney, Gail. “The Reign of the Amoeba: Further Thoughts about the Future of Comparative Literature.”

*Saussy, Haun. “Comparative Literature: The Next Ten Years.”

Paradigms:

Damrosch, David. “World Literature as Figure and as Ground.”

Practices:

Karen Thornber. “Comparative Literature, World Literature, and Asia.

Brigitte Le Juez. “Creative Reception: Reviving a Comparative Method.”

Michael Swacha. “Comparing Structures of Knowledge.”

Subsequently published in book form as:

Futures of Comparative Literature: ACLA State of the Discipline Report. Ed. by Ursula Heise.(New York, Routledge: 2017).

--------------------------------------------------

Kushner, Eva. "Is Comparative Literature Ready for the Twenty-First Century?." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 2.4 (2000): <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1096>

---------------------------------------------------

En CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 19.5 (2017) [número especial dedicado al tema: "Against the "Death" of the Discipline of Comparative Literature"].

Cao, Shunqing. "Introduction to Against the “Death” of the Discipline of Comparative Literature." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 19.5 (2017): <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.3118>

Du, Ping. "Another Argument on the "Crisis Said" of Comparative Literature." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 19.5 (2017): <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.3110>

Han, Zhoukun; and Wen, Quan. "Reflections on the Crisis of Comparative Literature in the Contemporary West." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 19.5 (2017): <https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.3119>

--------------------------------------------

TEMA (3): Para la institucionalización de la disciplina en programas académicos a nivel graduado.

Material de apoyo:

https://successfulstudent.org/best-graduate-programs-comparative-literature/

10 BEST GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE RANKING GUIDELINES:

Successful Student ranks schools for the benefit of students. We do this by determining ranking criteria that would be most helpful to students seeking graduate programs in Comparative Literature. This ranking was formulated by first consulting our sister site AcademicInfluence.com, to see which schools are leading in the influence of their faculty and alumni in the field of Comparative Literature, by publications and citations. We then selected the universities with graduate programs in particular, and ranked the best schools by looking at graduate degree offerings, coursework variety, and academic reputation.

-----------------

In an increasingly globally connected world, the study of comparative literature places important literature in its necessary cultural context, thus allowing scholars to see between societies and the literature they produce to engage in thorough real-world analysis of cross-cultural interaction across borders. Students will learn the cultural history of the societies whose literature they analyze, often including learning many languages along the way.

A master’s or doctorate degree in Comparative Literature, therefore, is an intrinsically interdisciplinary course of study whose graduates will attain expertise in several literature and cultural traditions across a handful of languages as they study with acclaimed faculty (many of whom hold positions across departments).

Students interested in obtaining a higher degree in comparative literature will build upon their solid undergraduate foundation, expanding their knowledge of at least two literature traditions, and at least one foreign language, into a deep knowledge of three to four traditions and three to four languages (often including both foreign and classical).

-------------------------

https://www.chronicle.com/article/doctoral-programs-by-the-numbers-124718/?bc_nonce=wpbr5jeqcosnk91ktwdc&cid=reg_wall_signup

The National Research Council assessed programs according to 21 different criteria. Here are the NRC’s five major ratings summarizing those criteria. Criteria for evaluating and ranking graduate programs in Comparative Literature:

S-Rank: Programs are ranked highly if they are strong in the criteria that scholars say are most important.

Research: Derived from faculty publications, citation rates, grants, and awards.

Students: Derived from students’ completion rates, financial aid, and other criteria.

Diversity: Reflects gender balance, ethnic diversity, and the proportion of international students.

R-Rank: Programs are ranked highly if they have similar features to programs viewed by faculty as top-notch.

https://www.collegehippo.com/graduate-school/programs/top-ranked-masters-degree-comparative-literature

Best Graduate Programs in Comparative Literature.

---------------------------------------------------------

---NUEVO---- 8/23/2023

ACLA PRIZES

The Charles Bernheimer Prize 2006

2006 Prize Winner:

Ilya Kliger, "Truth, Time and the Novel: Veridiction in Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Balzac." (Yale 2005)

Kliger's dissertation is a model of comparative analysis: sophisticated in its treatment of individual texts, attentive to the inflections of different linguistic media, focused in its subject yet informed by a broad historical and theoretical perspective, scrupulous in its scholarship, persuasive in its argumentation, and original in its insights. Kliger's subject is the emergence of a temporal conception of truth in the late-18th century and the subsequent narrative exploration of that truth in novels by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Balzac. In his opening chapter, Kliger deftly traces the formation of a temporal conception of truth in Kant, Diderot, Rousseau, Schlegel, and Hegel, and then extends this analysis with readings of Lukács, the Russian formalists and Bakhtin to generate a supple collection of paired concepts, in which the set author-other-metaphor-sjuzhet opposes that of hero-self-metonymy-fabula. With these concepts, Kliger conducts exegeses of Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment, Louis Lambert, and La Peau de chagrin, showing how conceptions of an atemporal and a temporal truth manifest themselves in plot, character, genre and theme. Kliger's study exhibits a remarkable intellectual maturity. His approach to literary works arises from a firm understanding of historical and theoretical tendencies and a clearly articulated critical position in relation to those tendencies. With impressive lucidity he develops his theoretical arguments, and with grace and sensitivity he follows the narrative unfolding of conceptions of time within the literary texts. Kliger's dissertation is in all ways a commendable achievement, fully deserving of the Bernheimer Prize.

2006 Bernheimer Prize Committee: Perciles Lewis, Yale University; Steven Yao, Hamilton College; Ron Bogue, University of Georgia.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Bernheimer Prize 2023

Chair, Hala Halim (NYU), Anthony Alessandrini (Kingsborough Community College & City University of New York) Jonathan Culler (Cornell)

“A Thorny Way of Thinking: Botanical Afterlives of Caribbean Plantation Slavery” by Hannah Cole (Cornell University)

Hannah Rachel Cole’s dissertation “A Thorny Way of Thinking: Botanical Afterlives of Caribbean Plantation Slavery” presents a methodologically original and theoretically innovative model of comparatism. Drawing its conceptual coordinates from postcolonial ecocriticism and critical plant studies and engaging scholarship from a range of fields, the dissertation’s interdisciplinarity is complemented by its holistic embrace of literary texts from different Caribbean traditions—Anglophone, Francophone and Hispanophone.

Cole brilliantly develops her own critical lexicon about “botanical imaginaries” to designate the poetics of plants held in common among given local populations, and uses the thorny marabú shrub as a figure for a reading practice that counters the extractive thinking of the Caribbean plantation. Tracing the shifting cultural significance of Caribbean flora on the margins of the main cash crops sponsored by European empires, she compellingly argues that global capital’s recent commodification of them instantiates a latter-day incarnation of the Caribbean plantation system. Taking inspiration from Fernando Ortiz, each of the three chapters of the study centers on a dyad of plant species in literary texts from one or more Caribbean islands: Guinea grass and sugarcane; cacao and immortelle trees; breadfruit and hog plum. This elegantly experimental structure is also heedful of the broader intellectual stakes of the project. Confessing to a degree of arbitrariness to the selection—suggested as it is by the flora in the literary texts—Cole construes it as one benefit of “a plant-focused method of reading” that strains against taxonomic logic. The study addresses diverse authors, including: Esteban Montejo, Lydia Cabrera, Alejandro Aguilar, Earl Lovelace, Merle Collins, Derek Walcott, Édouard Glissant. Cole’s project persuasively demonstrates how innovative comparatist models continue to yield timely insights, in this case into the environmental crises of our moment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RECAPITULACIÓN: /La Literatura Comparada ENTONCES (=Siglo XIX) y AHORA (=2023). Comparative Literature THEN and NOW.

I. Comparative Literature THEN (=when it was created in the 19th Century). ChatGPT April 1, 2023.

[a]

Comparative literature, as a formal academic field, emerged in the late 19th century in response to the growing interest in the study of literature from different cultures and languages. At the time, comparative literature was primarily concerned with the comparison of literary works from different national traditions, and with the exploration of the relationships between these works.

One of the key features of the field of comparative literature in the 19th century was its emphasis on the study of the literary canon. Scholars focused on the works of established authors from different national traditions, and sought to identify similarities and differences between these works. This approach reflected the dominant cultural and intellectual trends of the time, which placed a high value on the study of classic literature and the cultivation of a shared cultural heritage.

Another important characteristic of the field of comparative literature in the 19th century was its Eurocentrism. Scholars tended to view European literature as the norm or standard against which other literary traditions were measured. This Eurocentrism was a reflection of the dominant cultural and political power structures of the time, which gave Europe a position of dominance in the world.

Despite these limitations, the field of comparative literature in the 19th century played an important role in fostering cross-cultural dialogue and understanding. It provided a platform for scholars from different national and linguistic backgrounds to come together and exchange ideas, and it helped to promote a more global perspective on literary studies.

Overall, the field of comparative literature in the 19th century was characterized by its focus on the literary canon, its Eurocentric bias, and its role in promoting cross-cultural dialogue and understanding. While some of these features have persisted to the present day, the field has also evolved and expanded to encompass a broader range of literary traditions and approaches.

------------------------------------------------------------

[b]

The field of comparative literature emerged in the 19th century as an academic discipline that sought to compare and contrast literary works from different cultures and languages. At the time, the field was primarily concerned with exploring the similarities and differences between the literary traditions of Western Europe and the United States.

One of the key trends in the early years of comparative literature was the search for a common foundation that would allow scholars to compare literary works from different cultures. This led to a focus on themes and motifs that were seen as universal, such as love, death, and the human condition. Scholars believed that by identifying these common elements, they could develop a framework for comparing literary works from different cultures and languages.

Another important trend in the early years of comparative literature was the emphasis on philology, the study of language and its history. Scholars believed that a deep understanding of the languages in which literary works were written was essential for effective comparison, and many comparative literature programs were closely tied to departments of linguistics and philology.

Finally, the field of comparative literature in the 19th century was characterized by a focus on the literary canons of Western Europe and the United States. The works of Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe, for example, were considered foundational texts that provided a basis for comparison with works from other cultures.

Overall, the field of comparative literature in the 19th century was characterized by a search for commonalities between literary works from different cultures, a focus on philology and language, and an emphasis on the literary canons of Western Europe and the United States. While the field has evolved significantly since then, these early trends continue to shape its development today.

-------------------------------------------------------

II. Comparative Literature TODAY. ChatGPT April 1, 2023.

[a]

The field of comparative literature today is characterized by its interdisciplinary nature and its focus on exploring the relationships between different literary traditions, cultures, and languages. Comparative literature scholars are interested in how literature reflects and shapes cultural, historical, and social contexts, and how it is received and interpreted in different parts of the world.

One major trend in comparative literature is the increasing attention given to non-Western literary traditions and voices. Scholars are exploring the works of authors from diverse regions, such as Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and examining how these works engage with issues of globalization, postcolonialism, migration, and identity. Comparative literature is also increasingly engaging with other fields such as cultural studies, postcolonial studies, translation studies, and digital humanities.

Another important development in comparative literature is the emergence of new methodologies and approaches to literary analysis. Scholars are exploring the potentials of digital tools and technologies to study large corpora of texts and to trace patterns and networks of influence across different languages and cultures. They are also exploring new forms of intertextual and intermedial analysis, such as the study of adaptations, remixes, and transmedia storytelling.

Overall, the field of comparative literature today is a vibrant and dynamic area of scholarship, characterized by its openness to different literary traditions and its commitment to exploring the complexities of our globalized world. It offers exciting opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and for expanding our understanding of the ways in which literature reflects and shapes our shared human experience.

------------------------------------------------------

[b]

Comparative literature is an interdisciplinary field that involves the study of literature from different cultures and languages, and the exploration of the connections and differences between them. In recent years, comparative literature has become an increasingly important and dynamic field, with scholars from a range of disciplines contributing to its development.

One of the key trends in comparative literature today is the increasing focus on global and transnational perspectives. Scholars are exploring the ways in which literary works from different cultures intersect and influence one another, and how they reflect broader social, political, and historical trends. This has led to a growing interest in postcolonial and diasporic literatures, as well as in works that challenge established canons and literary hierarchies.

Another important trend in comparative literature is the use of digital technologies to facilitate the study and analysis of literary works. Scholars are using digital tools to create databases and archives of literary texts, to analyze large-scale literary trends and patterns, and to develop new approaches to literary interpretation.

Finally, there is a growing recognition of the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in comparative literature. Scholars are drawing on insights from fields such as anthropology, sociology, history, and philosophy to enrich their understanding of literary texts and their contexts.

Overall, the field of comparative literature today is characterized by its openness to new ideas and perspectives, its commitment to interdisciplinary and global approaches, and its willingness to engage with the challenges and complexities of the contemporary world.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---PROYECCIONES FUTURAS y EVALUACIÓN DE LA ÚLTIMA DÉCADA (2014-2024)---

https://stateofthediscipline.acla.org/

THE 2024 REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE DISCIPLINE OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE.

CFP—State of the Discipline Report

Dear ACLA member,

The Bylaws of the American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA) mandate that a State of the Discipline Report be prepared by the association every decade. The five previous reports (1965, 1975, 1993, 2006, and 2014) have become landmarks in the history of the discipline, chronicling its developments intellectually and institutionally. Taken together, those reports tell a story of Comparative Literature’s increasing openness to the world beyond Europe, a widening range of interdisciplinary approaches, and a gradual democratization of the process of producing the Report itself: from prescriptive statements issued by eminent scholars at elite institutions to the wide-open format of the 2010s, in which a large number of comparatists from a broad spectrum of institutions and ranks contributed to a mosaic of comparative practices.

As co-chairs of the editorial committee of the 2020s Report, we invite you to share your perspective on the developments, transformations, continuities, challenges, opportunities, and any other aspect of significance for Comparative Literature at the present time. We welcome essays of 1,000-5,000 words, to be submitted through the “Submit an Entry” link on this website. The website will remain open for submissions until November 1, 2023. All submissions will be reviewed by the Editorial Committee. The online version of the Report will be launched in 2024.

Submissions by students, graduate and advanced undergraduate, are encouraged.

Please submit your essay to only one of the following sections. The questions below are meant only as suggestions; feel free to address others you deem relevant.

Languages, grounds, translation

How has multilingualism fared in the past decade? What is the sphere of comparison now? Which languages have newly emerged within the purview of Comparative Literature, which remain central or marginal, and which have dropped out? How are the grounds for comparison among linguistic traditions being established? What kinds of relations continue to be relevant? Which ones are being formed? Which have become problematic, and why? What role has translation played in literary scholarship and pedagogy?

Section editors: Theo D’haen and Irene Sywenky

Theories, paradigms, methods, keywords

What new ideas, approaches, and concepts emerged in the past decade? How have existing theories, methods, and paradigms evolved? Which have emerged, or reemerged? How is Comparative Literature today informed by disciplinary, interdisciplinary, philological, postcolonial, digital, environmental, medical, social science, and other methodologies?

Section editors: Dina Al-Kassim and Ranjana Khanna

Worlds, regions, minorities, geopolitics

How have the categories of World Literature, area studies, minorities, diaspora, migration, and refugees challenged or critiqued the idea of national literature? Which scales of comparison have gained purchase over the past decade? How do they intersect with, nest within, reinforce, contest, or cancel one another? How does geopolitics shape the space and the priorities of Comparative Literature?

Section editors: Dina Al-Kassim and Theo D’haen

Histories, temporalities, periodization

What historical categories and/or temporal paradigms are newly relevant to Comparative Literature? Which have been questioned, modified, or bypassed in the last decade? Which periods, and which geo-cultural temporalities, have come to the attention of comparatists recently? How is the tension between historicism and presentism being negotiated? What histories of the present, and of presentism, inform comparative practices today?

Section editors: Sangeeta Ray and Irene Sywenky

Power, justice, ethics

In what old and new ways have colonialism, indigeneity, race, ethnicity, gender, class, and other forms of hegemony impacted Comparative Literature over the past decade? How has the discipline responded (or not)? What forms of ethical engagement in scholarship, teaching, and public outreach are available to comparatists today?

Section editors: Chadwick Allen and Rei Terada

Institutions, pedagogy, employment

How have the working conditions of comparatists changed over the past decade? What new challenges present themselves? Where have student enrollments declined or increased? What teaching strategies have continued, emerged, or changed to meet the challenges of the past decade? What are the implications of the ongoing job crisis for graduate programs in Comparative Literature? How should we be preparing students for career both within and without the academy?

Section editors: Sangeeta Ray and Rei Terada

We hope that you will consider contributing to the State of the Discipline Report of the 2020s.

Sincerely,

Waïl S. Hassan & Shu-mei Shih

Editorial Committee Co-Chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EL EJEMPLO MÁS RECIENTE DE LA MANERA EN QUE SE DAN LOS DEBATES EN NUESTRA DISCIPLINA: LA PUBLICACIÓN, 20 AÑOS MÁS TARDE, Y CON UN PRÓLOGO NUEVO, DE LA SEGUNDA EDICIÓN DE:

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Death of a Discipline (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003/2023).

I. TRASFONDO 2003

A. LAS “WELLEK LIBRARY LECTURES” Y SUS PUBLICACIONES EN FORMA DE LIBRO.

Desde 1981 el Instituto de Teoría Crítica (Critical Theory Institute) de la Universidad de California en Irvine ha auspiciado anualmente la importantísima serie de conferencias titulada “The Wellek Library Lectures” en honor al distinguido Profesor Emérito de Literatura Comparada, René Wellek. Cada año se invita a un internacionalmente destacado teórico del campo a presentar su acercamiento teórico-crítico y a insertarlo en la escena teórico-disciplinaria contemporánea. Las tres conferencias que cada teórico dicta se publican posteriormente en forma de libro.

["Each year, we invite an internationally distinguished critical theorist to visit the campus to deliver a series of three lectures in which they develop their critical position and relate it to the contemporary theoretical scene. Since 1981, the School of Humanities and UCI Critical Theory have sponsored an annual lecture series, named in honor of René Wellek (Yale University), whose library of works in critical theory is housed in Langson Library Special Collections at the University of California, Irvine. All past Wellek Lectures are listed on this webpage. Each set of lectures is generally published in the Columbia University Press Wellek Library Lectures series."]

La conferenciante que inauguró el nuevo siglo (2000) fue Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, con una presentación titulada provocadoramente: “Death of a Discipline”. En 2003, Columbia University Press la publicó con el mismo título:

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Death of a Discipline (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).

***Pocos textos en la historia de la disciplina de la Literatura Comparada han generado tanta discusión y debate. Ciertamente se puede decir que el libro de Gayatri Spivak es uno de los libros más importantes del campo comparatista de este siglo.

["For almost three decades, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has been ignoring the standardized "rules" of the academy and trespassing across disciplinary boundaries. Today she remains one of the foremost figures in the study of world literature and its cultural consequences. In this new book she declares the death of comparative literature as we know it and sounds an urgent call for a "new comparative literature," in which the discipline is given new life—one that is not appropriated and determined by the market.

In the era of globalization, when mammoth projects of world literature in translation are being undertaken in the United States, how can we protect the multiplicity of languages and literatures at the university? Spivak demonstrates how critics interested in social justice should pay close attention to literary form and offers new interpretations of classics such as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own. Through close readings of texts not only in English, French, and German but also in Arabic and Bengali, Spivak practices what she preaches."]

B. EJEMPLOS DE LAS PRIMERAS REACCIONES A LA EDICIÓN DEL 2003:

A continuación aparece una serie de artículos que se publicaron en un número especial de la revista Comparative Literature [Comparative Literature 57:3, Responding to the Death of a Discipline: An ACLA Forum (Summer 2005).] como respuesta o reacción a lo planteado por el libro de Gayatri Spivak. [SE PUEDE LEER A TRAVÉS DE PROJECT MUSE]

Emily Apter. “Afterlife of a Discipline.” 201-206.

Christopher Bush. “Deaths of a Discipline.” 207-213.

Jane Gallop. “Acknowledgments.” 214-218.

Haun Saussy. “Chiasmus.” 234-238.

Corinne Scheiner. “Teleiopoiesis, Telepoesis, and the Practice of Comparative Literature.” 239-245.

Steven G. Yao. “The Unheimlich Maneuver; or the Gap, the Gradient, and the Spaces of Comparison.” 246-255.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. JULIO-AGOSTO DE 2023:

A. Death of a Discipline: Twentieth Anniversary Edition (The Wellek Library Lectures) Paperback – July 11, 2023.

[This anniversary edition features a new preface in which Spivak reflects on the fortunes of comparative literature in the intervening years and its tasks today.]

B. LA REACCIÓN: NÚMERO ESPECIAL DE LA REVISTA Comparative Literature Studies “Traveling with Death of a Discipline: forum on the twentieth anniversary of the publication of Gayatri Spivak’s Death of a Discipline,” Comparative Literature Studies 60:2 (2023). [SE PUEDE LEER A TRAVÉS DE PROJECT MUSE]

Nergis Ertürk. “Introduction: Death of a Discipline and the Imperatives of Comparatism.”195-203.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. “To My Questioners: Alphabetically Listed by Last Name: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Emily Apter, Pheng Cheah, Brent Hayes Edwards, David Golumbia.” 204-233.

[Editor’s note: This written interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak was conducted by Emily Apter, Pheng Cheah, Brent Hayes Edwards, and David Golumbia in December 2022 and January 2023. Spivak’s answers to Apter’s questions appear first, followed by Spivak’s responses to questions from Cheah, Edwards, and Golumbia. Apter suggested the first set of italicized topic headings. To provide consistency, I added topic headings to the sections of the interview that follow. —Nergis Ertürk ]

Ben Conisbee Baer, “Other Knows Best.” 234-243.

Gavin Walker. “Singular Unverifiability.” 253-262.

Rosalind C. Morris, “Death of a Discipline: An Anthropologist Tries to Respond,” 263-273.

Anirban Bhattacharjee, “Death of a Discipline and the Task of Worlding,” Comparative Literature Studies 60, no. 1 (2023): 274-281.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EL COMPONENTE METODOLÓGICO TEÓRICO-CRÍTICO GENERAL.

https://www.thoughtco.com/best-literary-theory-criticism-books-740537

The 10 Best Literary Theory and Criticism. By Esther Lombardi.

https://bookoblivion.com/2016/11/21/best-books-literary-critical-theory/

The Best Books for Studying Literary and Critical Theory. By Jessica Manuel.

Jeffrey T Nealon and Susan Searls Giroux. “Why Theory?”. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the New Humanities (Culture and Politics Series). New York: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2002. Second edition: 2012: 1-8.

https://newmediacivicengagement3020.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/nealongiroux-the-theory-toolbox.pdf

Gang of Four. “Why Theory?” [SONG]

Lyrics: People got their opinions. Where do they come from? Each day seems like a natural fact. And what we think changes how we act. People got opinions. Where do they come from? Each day seems like a natural fact. And what we think changes how we act. So to change ideas, Change is what we do. Too much thinking makes me ill. I think I’ll have another gin. A few more drinks, it’ll be alright. Each day seems like a natural fact. And what we think changes how we act. Each day seems like a natural fact…

-From the album Solid Gold (1981). Genre: Post-punk.

TEMA (1): Problemas de definición. Fronteras, debates y polémicas, marcos conceptuales, objetivos, áreas de trabajo, objetos de estudio, convenciones. Wellek y Warren vs Culler.

GLOSARIO:

teoría literaria vs crítica literaria vs historia de la literatura, literatura/discurso, obra/texto, autor/lector, subjetividad/objetividad, valor, canon, patrones/normas/modelos/criterios, poética/retórica/hermenéutica, lo prescriptivo (o normativo) vs lo descriptivo, interpretación y percepción, significado ("meaning"), gusto/juicio estético, ideología (consideraciones ideológicas), lo universal vs lo particular, responsabilidad social, problemas de autoridad y poder, criterio literario o estético vs criterio político, análisis vs descripción, explicación vs exploración, comentario, resumen, paráfrasis, empatía/identificación/distancia/ironía, especialización vs generalización, hegemonía vs heterogeneidad, "pluralismo", "teaching the conflicts", "culture wars", educación post-industrial.

¿Corrientes, escuelas, etiquetas, banderas, sombrillas?

"New Criticism", Formalismo ruso, Estructuralismo, Post-estructuralismo, Postmodernismo, Semiótica, Psicoanálisis, Deconstrucción, Hermenéutica, "Speech-Act Theory", Narratología, Fenomenología, Sociocrítica, (Post-) Marxismo, "New historicism", Estética de la recepción, "Reader-response criticism", los Neo-retóricos, "Composition studies", "Pragmatic Theory", "Film Theory", "Gender-Class-Race Theories => feminist theory and criticism, gay/queer studies, Afro-American literary criticism", "canon wars", "culture wars", Postcolonialismo, estudios étnicos ("minorities"), inter-trans-multi-disciplinariedad, estudios culturales, poética cultural, "critical theory", estudios multimedia, ecocrítica.

PREGUNTAS DE DISCUSIÓN:

En qué sentido puede decirse que entre la “teoría de la literatura” de R. Wellek y A. Warren y la “teoría” de Jonathan Culler <”not theory of literature, mind you; just plain ‘theory’” (p.1)> se modifica tanto la concepción de lo literario como de lo teórico? ¿Cómo cambia el objetivo (i.e. eje, propósito, objeto de estudio, tipo de estudio, forma de argumentar, etc.) de esta área de estudio (i.e. la llamada teoría literaria)? Para las definiciones, ver las LECTURAS DE APOYO.

LECTURAS DE BASE:

Wellek, René y A. Warren. "Teoría, crítica e historia literarias." in Teoría Literaria. Madrid: Gredos, 1969: 47-56.

-----------------------------. “Literary Theory, Criticism, and History.” Theory of Literature. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1942, 1947, 1949: 29-38.

Culler, Jonathan. "What is Theory?" in Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997: 1-17.

"teoría" según Culler [en español] https://teorialiteraria2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/escanear0001.pdf

ESQUEMAS DE LOS ARTÍCULOS DE CULLER Y WELLEK/WARREN.

OTROS DOCUMENTOS DE REFERENCIA:

Barry, Peter. "Ten tenets of liberal humanism" (16-21), "Some recurrent ideas in critical theory." (34-36). in Beginning theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1995.

Fuery, Patrick and Nick Mansfield. “Post-humanism” (4-17). Cultural Studies and Critical Theory. Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000.

Lye, John. "The differences between Literary Criticism, Literary Theory and 'theory itself'." Brock University. 1998. Last updated in 2008.

Lye, John. "Some Characteristics of Contemporary Theory." Brock University. 1997, 2000. Last updated in 2008.

Lye, John. "THEORY CHECKLIST: A Working Document." Brock University. 1997, 1999. Last updated in 2008.

Lye, John. "Contemporary Literary Theory." Brock Review Volume 2 Number 1, 1993: 90-106. Last updated in 2008.

EJEMPLOS DE RESEÑAS:

Dolis, John. Review of The Literary in Theory. Jonathan Culler. Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2007. COMPARATIVE LITERATURE STUDIES 45.3 (2008): 401-404.

Lo, Louis. Review of The Literary in Theory. Jonathan Culler. Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2007. The Modern Language Review 103.1 (Jan. 2008): 176.

Miller, Adam. Review of The Literary in Theory. Jonathan Culler. Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2007. The Modest Proposal (Winter 2009).

TEMA (2): La pre-historia.

Panorama histórico: de Platón a la propuesta romántica de William Wordsworth / Samuel Taylor Coleridge y el humanismo moral de Matthew Arnold. Introducción y trasfondo general.

LECTURAS DE REFERENCIA:

Esquemas: Figuras de la teoría literaria (1 y 2).

Harland, Richard. Literary Theory from Plato to Barthes, an introductory history. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999.

***Habib, M.A.R. Literary Theory from Plato to the Present. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 2011.

TEMA (3): LA TEORÍA.

BIBLIOGRAFÍA GENERAL DE APOYO PARA EL COMPONENTE TEÓRICO-CRÍTICO

Los siguientes textos y enlaces de referencia básicos nos acompañarán a lo largo de esta travesía:

***García Landa, José Angel. A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology. 28th edition (2023). [ESTA ES LA BIBLIOGRAFIA MAS COMPLETA Y MAS AL DIA SOBRE EL TEMA] http://www.unizar.es/departamentos/filologia_inglesa/garciala/bibliography.html

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester & New York: Manchester U. Press/St. Martin's Press, 1995, 2002, 2009.

Bennett, Andrew. Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory. Third edition. 2004. New edition in 2008. http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/ahabeeb/files/2012/02/An_Introduction_to_Literature__Criticism_and_Theory.pdf

Bertens, Hans. Literary Theory. The Basics. New York & London: Routledge, 2001-2, 2008.

Birns, Nicholas. Theory After Theory: An Intellectual History of Literary Theory From 1950 to the Early 21st Century. Ontario & New York: Broadview Press, 2010.

Carter, David. Literary Theory (Pocket Essentials Series). Harpenden, Great Britain: Cox and Wyman, 2006.

Castle, Gregory. The Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007.

Culler, Jonathan. Literary Theory. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1997, 2000.

Dobie, Ann B. Theory into Practice: An Introduction to literary criticism. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012.

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory. An Introduction. Second Edition. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press, 1996, 2003, 2008. Cuarta edición: 2003: http://mthoyibi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/literary-theory_an-introduction_terry-eagleton.pdf

Elliott, Jane and Derek Attridge. Theory After ‘Theory’. London &New York: Routledge, 2011.

Fry, Paul H. Theory of Literature (The Open Yale Course Series). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012.

Groden, Michael, Martin Kreiswirth, and Imre Szeman, eds. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, 2005, 2011.

Leitch, Vincent B., gen.ed. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2001.

Nealon, Jeffrey T. and Susan Searls Giroux. The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the New Humanities (Culture and Politics Series). New York: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2002.

Rapaport, Herman. THE LITERARY THEORY TOOLKIT. A Compendium of Concepts and Methods. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan, eds. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, 2004.

Rolón Collazo, Lissette and Beatriz Llenín Figueroa. Quién le teme a la teoría? Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico: Editora Educación Emergente, 2010. SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR EN LA LIBRERIA MAGICA EN RIO PIEDRAS.

Ryan, Michael. Literary Theory: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.

Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 1985, 2005, 2011. Quinta edición: 2005: https://mthoyibi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/03-readers-guide-to-contemporary-literary-theory-5th-ed_raman-selden.pdf

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. A User-Friendly Guide. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999, 2006.

Waugh, Patricia, ed. Literary Theory and Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. https://literariness.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Literariness.org-Literary-Theory-and-Criticism-An-Oxford-Guide-by-Patricia-Waugh.pdf

-----------------------

Open Yale Courses:

ENGL 300: INTRODUCTION TO THEORY OF LITERATURE

Recorded in Spring, 2009. Prof. Paul H. Fry.

http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300

Updated in 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD00D35CBC75941BD

Paul H. Fry. Theory of Literature. [BOOK VERSION] Pub. 2012.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EL COMPONENTE TEÓRICO-CRÍTICO ESPECÍFICO: La(s) narratología(s).

LECTURAS BÁSICAS:

***the living handbook of narratology (LHN): http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/

Why is the LHN called a living handbook? The living handbook of narratology (LHN) is based on the Handbook of Narratology, first published by Walter de Gruyter in 2009. From May 2009 to April 2013, the LHN was hosted and maintained by Hamburg University Press. This Wiki-based version remains preserved under the date April 30, 2013, and is further accessible at:

http://wikis.sub.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php/Main_Page.

Since May 1, 2013, the LHN appears in a new design, based on a DRUPAL-CMS installation. As an open access publication, it makes available all of the 32 articles contained in the original print version—and more: the LHN offers the additional functionality of electronic publishing including full text search facility, one-click-export of reference data and digital humanities tools for text analysis. The LHN continuously expands its original content base by adding new articles on concepts and theories fundamental to narratology and to the study of narrative in general. It offers registered narratologists the opportunity to comment on existing articles, suggest additions or corrections, and submit new articles to the editors.

----------------------------------------------------

***Manfred Jahn: Narratology 2.3: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative

Full reference: Jahn, Manfred. 2021. Narratology 2.3: A Guide to the Theory of Narrative.

English Department, University of Cologne. URL www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppn.pdf

Date: June 2021.

Project page: www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/ppp.htm

Homepage: www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/

This tutorial offers a toolbox of basic narratological concepts, approaches, and models, and shows how

to put it to work in the analysis of fiction.

Version 2.3: Bookmarked all graphics. Two 'multi-part mind maps' to complement WHO narrates

WHAT HOW (Fig.2): WHO perceives WHAT from WHICH POV (Fig. 7) and WHO characterizes WHOM

HOW in WHAT CONTEXT (Fig. 15). Some test questions in 7.5 (Characterization).

Version 2.2: More pointers to recent research, some new graphics (conceptual blending in Room at the

Top, 3.2.26.2, Lanser's homodiegesis scale, 3.3.3, discourse time vs story time in Joyce's "A Painful

Case", 5.2.2 ), three additional case studies (multiple focalization in The Solid Mandala (9.2),

Siegfried's last tale (9.3), and conversational story-telling in Wilder's The Apartment (9.4). The PDF

now comes with a bookmark panel listing the document's main sections.

LECTURAS DE APOYO:

Mark Currie. "Introduction: Narratology, Death and Afterlife." Postmodern Narrative Theory (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998): 1-14.

David Darby. "Form and Context: An Essay in the History of Narratology." Poetics Today 22.4 (2001): 829-852.

David Herman. "Introduction: Narratologies." Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Ed. by D. Herman. (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State U. Press, 1999): 1-30.

Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan. "Introduction." Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London & N.Y: Methuen, 2002): 1-5.

----------------------------------. "Towards… Afterthoughts, almost twenty years later." Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London & N.Y: Methuen, 2002): 134-149.

Jan Christoph Meister, Tom Kindt, Wilhelm Schernus (editors). Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality and Disciplinarity. (New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2005).

David Herman, Manfred Jahn, Marie-Laure Ryan (editors). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. (New York: Routledge, 2005).

John Pier and José Ángel García Landa (editors). Theorizing Narrativity. (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008).

Gerald Prince. "Narratology." Definition. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Ed. by Michael Groden and Martin Kreiswirth. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, 2005, 2011.

http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/narratology.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. "CAT PERSON" DE KRISTEN ROUPENIAN. THE NEW YORKER 2017.

El caso de "Cat Person" de Kristen Roupenian y las reacciones/discusiones que se generaron en la prensa en torno a este relato. ["A New Yorker spokeswoman said via email that of all the fiction the magazine published this year, 'Cat Person' was the most read online, and it’s also one of the most-read pieces overall in 2017."]

El relato:

*Roupenian, Kristen (2017-11-12). “Cat Person.” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person). The New Yorker.

----------------------------

Bibliografía en torno a "Cat Person":

I. Primera ola de reacciones:

Garber, Megan (11 December 2017). " 'Cat Person' and the Impulse to Undermine Women's Fiction" (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/cat-person-is-not-an-essay/548111/). The Atlantic.

Bromwich, Jonah (11 December 2017). " 'Cat Person' in The New Yorker: A Discussion With the Author" (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/books/cat-person-new-yorker.html). The New York Times.

Sini, Rozina (11 December 2017). "Cat Person: The short story people are talking about" (https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42307714). BBC.

Roberts, Molly (11 December 2017). " 'Cat Person' is a next step in the #MeToo movement" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/12/11/why-cat-person-went-viral/). The Washington Post.

Khazan, Olga (2017-12-11). "A Viral Short Story for the #MeToo Moment: The depiction of uncomfortable romance in "Cat Person" seems to resonate with countless women" (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/12/a-viral-short-story-for-the-metoo-moment/548009/). The Atlantic.

Men React to Cat Person. Twitter@MenCatPerson. 32 Tweets. Dec.2017. https://twitter.com/MenCatPerson

Welsh, Kaite (2017-12-12). "Cat Person is 'mundane', Austen is 'dross': why do so many men hate female writing?" (https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2017/dec/12/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-new-yorker-jane-austen-misogyny-as-criticism). The Guardian.

Grady, Constance (2017-12-12). "The uproar over the New Yorker short story 'Cat Person,' explained" (https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/12/16762062/cat-person-explained-new-yorker-kristen-roupenian-short-story). Vox.

Brockes, Emma (2019-26-01). “Cat Person author Kristen Roupenian: 'Dating is caught up in ego, power and control'” (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/26/cat-person-author-kristen-roupenian-dating-ego-power-control). The Guardian.

Roupenian, Kristen. (2019-01-10). "What It Felt Like When 'Cat Person' Went Viral" (https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/what-it-felt-like-when-cat-perspn-went-viral). The New Yorker.

Cosslett, Rhiannon Lucy (2021-07-09). "The Cat Person debate shows how fiction writers use real life does matter" (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/09/the-cat-person-debate-shows-how-fiction-writers-use-real-life-does-matter). The Guardian.

Treisman, Deborah (2017-12-11). "Kristen Roupenian on the Self-Deceptions of Dating" (https://www.newyorker.com/books/this-week-in-fiction/fiction-this-week-kristen-roupenian-2017-12-11). The New Yorker.

-----------------------------------

II. Segunda ola de reacciones: el artículo de Alexis Nowicki y su secuela. Otros.

*Nowicki, Alexis (2021-07-08). " 'Cat Person' and Me" (https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/07/cat-person-kristen-roupenian-viral-story-about-me.html). Slate.

Specter, Emma (2021--07-08). "Why Is Everyone Talking About the "Cat Person" Short Story Again?" (https://www.vogue.com/article/why-is-everyone-talking-about-cat-person-again). Vogue.

Connolly, Rachel (2021-10-07).”'Cat Person’ was a story with a clear villain. But life is always more complicated than that” (https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2021/07/cat-person-was-story-clear-villain-life-always-more-complicated). NewStatesman.

Lapointe, Grace (2019-04-15). "The Detail that Most Cat Person Discussions Missed" (https://bookriot.com/the-detail-that-most-cat-person- discussions-missed/). Book Riot.

---------------------------------------

III. VISION DE CONJUNTO.

***Johnson, Luke. "There's No Such Thing as a Cat Person: A Lacanian Approach to Literary Criticism in Light of #MeToo." symploke 28:1-2 (2020): 241-256. [PROJECT MUSE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. PREMISAS/DEFINICIONES/DISTINCIONES DE BASE DEL CURSO.

(0) Pre-concepciones de los estudiantes sobre la literatura, los estudios literarios, la teoría, el curso. Intereses, expectativas y necesidades académicas estudiantiles.

(1) Para la noción de disciplina académica que se va a estar utilizando, ver:

Tony Becher. "Las disciplinas académicas." en Tribus y territorios académicos: la indagación intelectual y las culturas de las disciplinas. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa, 1989: 37-57.

En su libro: Tribus y territorios académicos. La indagación intelectual y las culturas de las disciplinas (Barcelona: Gedisa Educación, 2002), Tony Becher analiza trece (13) “disciplinas” o “programas” en diez universidades británicas (Cambridge, entre ellas), y en dos universidades norteamericanas: Universidad de California (en sus sedes de Berkeley, Santa Bárbara, Los Ángeles y San Francisco) y la Universidad de Stanford. Su tesis central se esbozó a partir del estudio de la relación “que existe entre ciertas personas y ciertas ideas." En palabras de Tony Becher, "Lo que aquí propongo, e intentaré corroborar, es que las formas de organización de la vida profesional de los grupos particulares de académicos están íntimamente relacionadas con las tareas intelectuales que desempeñan. (…).” (p. 16)

--------------------------------

González Ochoa C. “Las disciplinas académicas.” Elementos 114 (2019) 11-18.

El término “disciplina académica” (…) es un término técnico que se usa para nombrar la organización del aprendizaje y la producción sistemática de nuevos conocimientos. Una lista general de sus características incluiría: 1) las disciplinas tienen un objeto particular de investigación (leyes, sociedad, política), aunque este objeto puede ser compartido con otra disciplina; 2) las disciplinas tienen un cuerpo de conocimientos especializado acumulado que se refiere a su objeto de investigación, que es específico a ellas y que generalmente no se comparte con otra; 3) las disciplinas poseen teorías y conceptos que pueden organizar el conocimiento acumulado; 4) las disciplinas usan terminologías específicas o un lenguaje técnico específico ajustado a su objeto; 5) las disciplinas han desarrollado métodos específicos de investigación con sus requerimientos específicos; y de manera más importante, 6) las disciplinas deben tener alguna manifestación institucional en la forma de temas de estudio que se enseñan en universidades, departamentos académicos y asociaciones profesionales conectadas a ellas. Solo a través de la institucionalización las disciplinas son capaces de reproducirse de una generación a la siguiente por medio de una preparación educativa específica. (Krishnan 2009, 9-10)

Las disciplinas académicas pueden pensarse en términos de las prácticas culturales que crean y mantienen; estas prácticas estarían unidas a otras más amplias, y desde esta perspectiva se puede concluir que las disciplinas son una forma de segmentación social; que sus practicantes pertenecen a diferentes tribus académicas que habitan y defienden diferentes territorios del conocimiento, y se distinguen por medio de las prácticas culturales y valores específicos creados por ellos mismos. Cada disciplina entonces se podría considerar como parte de agrupaciones culturales mayores (academias, etc.), como un microcosmos cultural que se manifiesta en la existencia de departamentos académicos disciplinarios y en asociaciones.

Las tribus académicas “definen su propia identidad y defienden su propio territorio intelectual empleando diversos mecanismos orientados a excluir a los inmigrantes ilegales”. (Becher 2001, 43)

-------------------------------------

Otras referencias:

Becher, T. “The significance of disciplinary difference.” Studies in Higher Education, Jun94, Vol. 19 Issue 2:151, 2 charts. https://blogs.helsinki.fi/ypeda-kriittinenmassa/files/2008/10/becher_1994.pdf

Krishnan A. (2009) "What are Academic Disciplines? Some observations on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity debate," NCRM Working Paper Series, University of Southampton: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.

Manathunga, C. and Brew, A. (2012) “Beyond Tribes and Territories: New Metaphors for New Times.” In P. Trowler, M. Saunders and R. Bamber (Eds) (2012).Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge, 44-56.

Trowler, P. (2008a) “Beyond Epistemological Essentialism: Academic Tribes in the 21st Century.” In Kreber, C. (ed) The University and its Disciplines:Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries. London: Routledge

Trowler, P. (2008b) Cultures and Change in Higher Education: Theories and Practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Bamber, R. (Eds) (2012).Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.

Academic disciplines defined as:

Reservoirs of knowledge resources shaping regularised behavioural practices, sets of discourses, ways of thinking, procedures, emotional responses and motivations. These provide structured dispositions for disciplinary practitioners who reshape them in different practice clusters into localised repertoires. While alternative recurrent practices may be in competition within a single discipline, there is common background knowledge about key figures, conflicts and achievements. Disciplines take organisational form, have internal hierarchies and bestow power differentially, conferring advantage and disadvantage. (Trowler, Saunders and Bamber (eds.) 2012, p. 9)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) La literatura/el discurso narrativo como acto de comunicación.

*Esquema de la situación de comunicación y las funciones del lenguaje según Roman Jakobson.

JAKOBSON'S COMMUNICATION MODEL

context: referential function

--------------

message: poetic function

addresser: emotive function ---------------------------------------> addressee: connative function

contact: phatic function

----------------------

code: metalinguistic function

Prepared by John Lye as a synopsis of part of Roman Jakobson's "Linguistics and Poetics" (1958)

Functions (italicized phrases)

The context or referential function is what is being spoken of, what is being referred to.

The poetic function is the focus on the message (the use of the medium) for its own sake. The associations (equivalence, similarity and dissimilarity, synonymity and antonymity); the repetitions of sound values, stresses, accents; the word and phrase boundaries and relationships (e.g. elided vs end-stopped words): as these are combined in sequence.

The emotive or expressive function of language refers to the attitude of the addresser towards that of which (or to whom) he speaks: through emphasis, intonation, loudness, pace, etc.

The phatic function is the use of language to keep people in contact with each other, the maintenance of social relationships.

The metalinguistic function is that use of language by which people check out with each other whether they are 'on the same page', using the same codes in the same contexts.

The connative function refers to those aspects of language which aim to create a certain response in the addressee.

-------------------------------------------------

(3) La teoría/crítica literaria como reflexión, enfoque, énfasis, ángulo de visión (i.e. maneras de ver, maneras de construir significados), herramienta, ideología.

*Esquema de clasificación de la teoría/crítica literaria de M.H. Abrams. en Abrams, M. H. The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1953.

the mirror and the lamp:

use of metaphoric models in the reading, writing and interpretation of literature; the changing metaphors to describe the human mind: the mirror as reflection of the world, the lamp as light/illumination [power of the imagination, vision] on the world:

"In the introduction to The Mirror and the Lamp (1953), Abrams constructs a taxonomic model encompassing, he suggests, all possible forms of literary theory. He identifies four elements that constitute the natural environment in which literature is produced and read: an author, a reader, a shared world, and a text. Abrams argues that all literary theories can be classified by the relative emphasis they place on one of these four elements.

(a) expressive theories emphasize the author;

(b) rhetorical or “pragmatic” theories emphasize effects on readers;

(d) “objective” theories emphasize the formal organization of the literary work.

As simple as this model is, Abrams makes a convincing case, documented in detail, that these four elements can effectively distinguish literary theories from the time of Plato and Aristotle up through the mid-twentieth century. Applying this model to his particular subject in The Mirror and the Lamp, Abrams argues that the transformations of aesthetic theory between the neo-classical and Romantic periods can best be described as a shift from mimetic to expressive theories.”

adapted from Blackwell’s Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory.

----------------------------------------------------------

(4) Las diversas teorías/estéticas de la recepción. Los conceptos de competencia comunicativa, horizonte de expectativas y comunidades de interpretación. Hans Robert Jauss, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish.

https://literariness.org/

Literary Theory and Criticism. ENGLISH LITERATURE, LITERARY THEORY AND CRITICISM, LINGUISTICS, FILM THEORY, EBOOKS, UGC NET JRF PREPARATION, NOVEL ANALYSIS, SCHOLARLY ARTICLES.

https://literariness.org/2020/10/18/reception-theory/

Reception theory, the approach to literature that concerns itself first and foremost with one or more readers’ actualization of the text, is based on a collective enterprise that has had far-reaching institutional consequences. Hans Robert Jauss, with his University of Constance colleagues Manfred Fuhrmann and Wolfgang Iser and with philosophers, historians, and critics such as Rainer Warning, Karlheinz Stierle, Dieter Henrich, Günther Buck, Jürgen Habermas, Peter Szondi, and Hans Blumenberg, is part of a loosely organized group that gathers regularly at colloquia, the proceedings of which are published in the multivolume Poetik und Hermeneutik.

The group’s first and most provocative pronouncements were two inaugural addresses at the University of Constance, Jauss’s in 1967, later published as Literaturgeschichte als Provokation für die Literaturwissenschaft (“Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory”), and Iser’s, “Die Appellstruktur der Texte,” in 1970, published in English as “Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response in Prose Fiction” (in J. Hillis Miller, ed., Aspects of Narrative, 1971). Whereas Iser’s work was based more on the works of Roman Ingarden and Hans-Georg Gadamer and on the German phenomenological tradition, Jauss’s explicit aim was to reintroduce the issue of history into the study of literature. Jauss reacted against three different ways of referring to history in literary studies: an idealist conception of history as a teleology; the positivist bias of nineteenth-century historicism, which has to forgo questions of relevance in order to save objectivity; and Geistesgeschichte, a history of ideas based on an irrationalist aesthetic. The two last alternatives both have to abandon the question of aesthetic value judgments, and Jauss sees Marxist theory and criticism and Russian Formalism as the two most influential methodologies that attempt to come to terms with the relationship between history and aesthetics. The two schools react strongly against the blind empiricism of positivism and against an aesthetic metaphysics, but they attempt to solve the problem in opposite ways.

https://literariness.org/2016/11/02/reception-theory-a-brief-note/

Conceptualized by Hans Robert Jauss in his Toward an Aesthetic of Reception in the late 1960s, Reception Theory refers to a historical application of the Reader Response theory, emphasizing altering interpretive and evaluative responses of generations of readers to a text. It focuses on the scope for negotiation and opposition on the part of the general public, over a period of time in history, as they interpret the meanings of a text based on their respective cultural background and life experiences. A reader’s response to a text is the joint product of the reader’s own horizon of expectations and the confirmations, disappointments, refutations and reformulations of these expectations. Since the linguistic and aesthetic expectation of readers change over the course of time, and since later readers and critics have access to the text as well as its criticisms, there develops an evolving historical tradition of interpretations and evaluations of a given literary work. Jauss refers to this tradition as a continuous dialectic between the text and the horizon of successive readers; the literary text, in itself, possesses no inherent meaning or value.

https://literariness.org/2020/10/17/reader-response-criticism/

https://literariness.org/2016/10/23/reader-response-criticism-an-essay/

Reader Response, primarily a German and American offshoot of literary theory, emerged (prominent since 1960s) in the West mainly as a reaction to the textual emphasis of New Criticism of the 1940s. New Criticism, the culmination of liberal humanist ideals, had stressed that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of the text; that the text is “autotelic” entity (complete within itself). Hence, it neglected authorial biography, social conditions during the composition of a work of art and the reader’s psychology. Reader Response Criticism wholly repudiated all these notions; instead, it focuses on the systematic examination of the aspects of the text that arouse, shape, and guide a reader’s response (for instance, Aristotelian Catharsis/ Brechtian alienation effect“. It designates multiple critical approaches to reading a text. According to Reader Response criticism, the reader is a producer rather than a consumer of meanings (parallel to Barthes’s Birth of the Reader). In this sense, a reader is a hypothetical construct of norms and expectations that can be derived or projected or extrapolated from the work. Because expectations may be violated or fulfilled, satisfied or frustrated, and because reading is a temporal process involving memory, perception, and anticipation, the charting of reader-response is extremely difficult and perpetually subject to construction and reconstruction, vision and revision.

*competencia comunicativa/competencia de lectura:

The term ‘communicative competence’ was coined by Hymes (1967), in reaction to Chomsky's notion of grammatical ‘competence,’ arguing against his search for an understanding of universals of language knowledge, and in favor of an ethnography of communication account which focuses on the full variety of knowledge of how to produce and interpret language used communicatively across different groups and cultures. When applied to the reading process, it becomes "reading competence".

*horizonte de expectativas:

Horizon of expectations is a term fundamental to German academic Hans Robert Jauss's reception theory. Specifically, it is the structure by which a person comprehends, decodes and appraises any text based on cultural codes and conventions particular to their time in history. These horizons are therefore historically flexible meanings. According to Jauss, the reader approaches a text armed with the knowledge and experience gained from interactions with other texts. These earlier texts arouse familiarity for the reader based on expectations and rules of genre and style (=norms, conventions).

"Conceptualized by Hans Robert Jauss in his Toward an Aesthetic of Reception in the late 1960s, Reception Theory refers to a historical application of the Reader Response theory, emphasizing altering interpretive and evaluative responses of generations of readers to a text. It focuses on the scope for negotiation and opposition on the part of the general public, over a period of time in history, as they interpret the meanings of a text based on their respective cultural background and life experiences. A reader’s response to a text is the joint product of the reader’s own horizon of expectations and the confirmations, disappointments, refutations and reformulations of these expectations. Since the linguistic and aesthetic expectation of readers change over the course of time, and since later readers and critics have access to the text as well as its criticisms, there develops an evolving historical tradition of interpretations and evaluations of a given literary work. Jauss refers to this tradition as a continuous dialectic between the text and the horizon of successive readers; the literary text, in itself, possesses no inherent meaning or value."

[Ver también: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_of_expectation ]

*comunidades de interpretación:

"Unlike Wolfgang Iser who analyses individual acts of reading, Stanley Fish situates the reading process within a broader institutional perspective. In Is There a Text in the Class? (1980), Fish proposes that competent readers form part of “interpretive communities”, consisting of members who share “interpretive strategies” or “set of community assumptions” of reading a text so as to write meaning into the text. He also proposed that each communal strategy in effect “creates” all the seemingly objective features of the text, as well as “intentions, speakers and authors” that readers may infer from the text. Hence the validity of any text depends on the assumptions and strategies that the readers may share with other members of a particular interpretive community.

He claims that all values and meanings of a text are relative to the concepts or schemes of a particular interpretive community and that, such conceptual schemes are “incommensurable” in that there is no standpoint outside of any interpretive community for translating the discourse of one community to another, or for mediating between them. Fish suggests that interpretation of a literary text is characterised not by fixed meanings in a linguistic system, but by practices and assumptions of an institution or a community, where meanings are derived from a context rather than from their position in the linguistic system. Thus, it is the context that imparts meaning to an utterance, and it is impossible to separate any utterance from its context."

-----------------------------------------------------

(5) Dos entradas/direcciones para el estudio de la literatura/del discurso narrativo: la poética y la hermenéutica. Para comprender el uso de los términos en este binomio: proyecto de investigación poético vs proyecto de investigación hermenéutico, según Jonathan Culler.

*Las definiciones de Jonathan Culler.

"Here there is a basic distinction, too often neglected in literary studies, between two kinds of projects:

(1) one, modeled on linguistics, takes meanings as what have to be accounted for and tries to work out how they are possible.

(2) The other, by contrast, starts with forms and seeks to interpret them, to tell us what they really mean.

In literary studies, this is a contrast between poetics and hermeneutics. Poetics starts with attested meanings or effects and asks how they are achieved. [...] Hermeneutics, on the other hand, starts with texts and asks what they mean, seeking to discover new and better interpretations. [...]"

J. Culler. “Language, meaning and interpretation.” Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, 61.

-------------------------------------------------

La poética (traducida como "Poetics") como se concibe tradicionalmente a partir de Aristóteles:

"Traditionally, the term poetics has been interpreted as an inquiry into the laws and principles that underlie a verbal work of art and has often carried normative and prescriptive connotations. It first appears in the form of systematic inquiry around 350 BC in Aristotle’s work Poetics and has since exercised enormous influence on attempts to define the structural and functional principles of works of art predominantly, but not exclusively, in the verbal medium."

The Chicago School of Media Theory.

--------------------------------------

(6) La literatura/el discurso narrativo como construcción (de sentido) y sistema de representación (mediación).

La literatura/la narración como construcción [vs como objeto estético. Contemplación vs análisis/interpretación. Belleza vs sentido.]. La literatura/el discurso narrativo como sistema de representación. Las narratologías textualistas. Los elementos constitutivos del sistema. Cuestiones de poética. "Literature as verbal sense-making in a particular way".

*Uso poético del lenguaje (=enfocado en sí mismo) vs uso ordinario del lenguaje (=como medio de comunicación) - según el formalismo ruso y las funciones del lenguaje de Roman Jakobson..

*Las narratologías clásica y post-clásica I. ¿Cómo está constituido un texto narrativo? (=How is a narrative text put together?) El concepto de mediación narrativa. Las noción de mediación narrativa (=narrador y focalizador o punto de vista). Mediacy (=indirect) vs Immediacy (=direct). Consideraciones de temporalidad y causalidad (=consecutividad/consecuencia). El modelo de Franz Stanzel (el círculo tipológico/the typological circle) vs el modelo de Gérard Genette.

"Mediacy and narrative mediation." https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/28.html

------------------------------------------

(7) La literatura/el discurso narrativo como sistema de expresión/enunciación, como retórica.

Las narratologías contextualistas: ideologías, género, clase, etnia, afectividad, etc. Las narratologías retóricas. Juicios/Sistemas de valor: Valor narrativo/descriptivo (¿Cómo está constituido el texto?) VS valor estético/evaluativo (¿El texto es bueno/bello? ¿Hasta qué punto? ¿A partir de qué criterios, de qué estándares?) VS valor político (¿El texto es bueno para quién?¿El texto está al servicio de los intereses de quién?) VS valor cognitivo (¿Qué nos enseña el texto, qué aprendemos del texto?) VS valor afectivo (¿Qué nos hace sentir el texto? =las expectativas a partir de la experiencia personal <ética y emocional> del lector).

*"Textuality vs experientiality, textuality vs storytelling vs fictionality vs "possible worlds" (mundos posibles) vs prototypes".

------------------------------------------

(8) Lectura poética o "espacial" / lectura narrativa o "temporal". Para comprender el uso de los términos en este binomio, ver: https://arcade.stanford.edu/content/spatialization-strategy-reading-narrative

Susan Stanford Friedman. "Spatialization: A Strategy for Reading Narrative". Arcade 1:1 (October 17, 2016).

Otras nociones pertinentes: los ejes verticales y horizontales del texto y las lecturas correspondientes de estos ejes. Spatial form [J. Frank. Chronotope (M. Bakhtine)]. Referencias importantes: M. Bakhtine, J. Kristeva, Paul Ricoeur, Peter Brooks, Joseph Frank.

------------------------------------

(9) El uso generalizado en los medios de comunicación del término narrativa/narrative. Lo mismo sucede con los términos "story" y "conversation".

http://richardgilbert.me/the-invasion-of-narrative/

Richard Gilbert: “Rampant Use of the Term ‘narrative’”. Why is everyone using the term 'narrative' all of a sudden?

Gilbert quotes Gerald Grow, retired Shakespeare Scholar:

“I am puzzled by what looks like a tendency to reduce events in the world that can mean life or death (e.g., men with guns, big storm, food shortage, job lost, clash of cultures, core beliefs) to the terms of literary criticism (narrative, story, margin). In many cases, I would expect some term like theory, explanation, understanding, picture, biography, motive, version, alibi, etc.

What is going on? What does it mean to conflate so many useful and content-filled distinctions into the vague theoretical term “narrative”? Calling so many types of discourse “narratives” is rather like referring to both wood pulp and voters as “biomass.” Where did this reductionistic use of the term “narrative” come from? Who is promoting it? Who benefits from it? Why do so many articulate, educated people so easily slip into using it when they are trying explain something? To question this devil in its own terminology: What is lost when the term “narrative” colonizes public discourse?”

---------------------

Richard Gilbert himself: “For me, “narrative” is obviously such a useful word because it draws attention to the fact that the truth is not just complex or dependent on where one sits but much more problematic.”

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/338764/usage-and-meaning-of-the-term-narrative/338770

I have the impression that the term narrative, which traditionally refers to the literary sense of:

-the art, technique, or process of narrating, or of telling a story: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.- Origin: a tale, story," 1560s, from Middle French narrative. (Dictionary.com)

is more and more frequently used with the modern/contemporary connotations which I could find clearly defined only in the AHD:

-A presentation of real-world events that connects them in a storylike way:

"There has been less of a coherent, connected media narrative and more of a kind of episodic focus on events, controversies and gaffes" (Mark Jurkowitz).

-An explanation or interpretation of events in accordance with a particular theory, ideology, or point of view:

for example, "the competing narratives of capitalism and Marxism." This use started in the late ‘80s.

*** A current example:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-coronavirus-and-the-ruptured-narrative-of-campus-life

“The Coronavirus and the ruptured narrative of campus life". By Dan Chiasson. March 12, 2020.

--------------------------------------------------

(10) Concepciones del texto y de la textualidad. Ver el artículo:

Peter Trifonas. "Conceptions of Text and Textuality: Critical Perspectives in Literary Theory from Structuralism to Poststructuralism." Interchange, Vol. 24/4 (1993): 381-395.

ABSTRACT: In attempting to explain the relationship between reader and text, theorists have alternated focus upon either the reader or the text, to clarify and validate perspectives on epistemological problems of hermeneutics-- or interpretation-- as the logical culmination of the reading act. Beyond facilitating comprehension, the essence of teaching reading in language education is the determination of cross-cultural aspects of communication and language competence wherein the heart of hermeneutics lies.Therefore, this paper surveys a diverse field of cross-disciplinary research incorporating both philosophical and empirical methodology in literary theory, semiotics, reading theory, philosophy, cognitive psychology, and linguistics, in order to more clearly define an approach to investigation of hermeneutics in relation to the reading act and literature (or written text).

--------------------------------------

(11) De la teoría literaria al método crítico. Ver el artículo:

Rita Felski. "From Literary Theory to Critical Method." Profession (2008): 108-116.

*Este artículo es valioso para entender la relación entre teoría literaria contemporánea y método crítico/interpretativo literario. Ha servido de base para la manera en que se concibe y organiza nuestro curso.

---------------------------------------

(12) Humanismo liberal (razón y ciencia, universalismo, meta-relatos, explicaciones coherentes y abarcadoras/totalizantes, principio de legitimidad del saber, *humanidad compartida e individualismo, valores de la Ilustración vs fe/superstición) vs estructuralismo, post-modernismo, post-estructuralismo, etc.

Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. An introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester & New York: Manchester U. Press/St. Martin's Press, 1995, 2002, 2009.

"The term 'liberal humanism' became current in the 1970s, as a shorthand (and mainly hostile) way of referring to the kind of criticism which held sway before 'theory'. The word 'liberal' in this formulation roughly means not politically radical, and hence generally evasive and non-committal on political issues. 'Humanism' implies something similar; it suggests a range of negative attributes, such as 'non-Marxist' and 'non-feminist', and 'non-theoretical'. There is also the implication that liberal humanists believe in 'human nature' as something fixed and constant which great literature expresses. Liberal humanists did not (and do not, as a rule) use this name of themselves, but, says an influential school of thought, if you practise literary criticism and do not call yourself a Marxist critic, or a structuralist, or a stylistician, or some such, then you are probably a liberal humanist, whether or not you admit or recognise this." (p.12)

https://habib.camden.rutgers.edu/publications/essays/the-myth-of-liberal-humanism/

M.A. Rafey Habib. “The Myth of Liberal Humanism.” 2021. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

"But what is liberal humanism? This is not so easy to answer. In the history of modern thought, liberal humanism has comprised the mainstream philosophies of the bourgeois Enlightenment, such as rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism. The economic principles of bourgeois ideology, such as rationality, laissez-faire and free competition, have been expressed by the classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The political principles of democracy, individual rights, and constitutional government were expressed by figures such as Rousseau, John Locke and Thomas Paine. The imperial ideology and mission – not only to conquer other parts of the world for their economic resources but to submit them also to the civilizing effects of Western literature and culture – were expressed by figures such as Thomas Babington Macaulay, and many politicians, philosophers and scientists. All of these tendencies – as refracted through the philosophy of Kant – achieve a kind of synthesis in the philosophy of Hegel, the supreme expression of bourgeois thought, built on the philosophical principles of the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution, uniting the divergent modes of Enlightenment thought such as rationalism and empiricism, and combining these with a Romantic emphasis on totality and the unity of subject and object, all integrated into a notion of historical progress. It was Hegel who most articulately expressed the notion of the relatedness of all concepts and entities, of human identity as a reciprocal and social phenomenon, of the world as a social and historical human construction, of identity as intrinsically constituted by diversity, of language as a system of human perception, and of the very idea of otherness or alterity as it informs much modern thought."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. ARCHIVOS: GRUPOS 1 [LISTADO] Y 2 [ÍCONOS].