Suchergebnisse

Pages:1 to 25 -- Pages:26 to 50 -- Pages:51 to 75 -- Pages:76 to 100 -- Pages:101 to 125 -- Pages:126 to 150 -- Pages:151 to 175 -- Pages:176 to 200 -- Pages:201 to 225 -- Pages:226 to 250 -- Pages:251 to 275 -- Pages:276 to 300 -- Pages:301 to 325 -- Pages:326 to 345

Of all of the cultural figures of fin de siècle Germany, the dramatist Frank Wedekind (1864–1918) is one of the hardest to comprehend. He does not fit easily into standard literary categories. His concern with sexuality causes some scholars to classify him with Jugendstil or Dekadenz; his grotesque caricatures, frenetic dialogue, and occasionally surreal imagery make others view him as a protoexpressionist; and his biting criticism of bourgeois society seems to make him both a wayward naturalist and a precursor of Sternheim, Brecht, and Dürrenmatt. Wedekind's resistance to tagging suggests that studies conducted solely in terms of the literary currents of his time will not uncover the essence of the man or his work. A more productive method seems to consist in examining the clash of the ideal and the real in Wedekind's life, the way in which his views on art and the artist were confounded by the economic reality of literary production. It was the shattering of the classical idealist conception of the artist by a total commercialization of the arts that gave birth to Wedekind's dramas.

Um Wedekinds politisches Engagement und Denken am Vorabend und während des Ersten Weltkriegs zu verstehen, bedarf es zunächst einer Rückschau, denn so sehr auch individuelle politische Äußerungen sich auf ein aktuelles Tagesgeschehen beziehen, sind sie doch nicht nur allein aus diesem Kontext heraus zu verstehen.

International audience ; Today's theatre audience is rarely aware of the fact that Wedekind's Lulu was first conceived as a multilingual play. Indeed, the first version of his early masterpiece completed in 1894 under the title Die Büchse der Pandora, includes numerous and extensive passages in French and English. One of the reasons why the public as well as the critics and scholars generally ignore this fact is the complex process of censorship and self-censorship that gradually led the author to rework his play, eradicating in the same time it's multilingual dimension. While scholarly literature seldom mentions Wedekind's multilingual writing, this issue acquires a new importance in the context of current debates around world literature and migrant writing and needs to be reassessed. Thus, our paper aims at analyzing both the aesthetic and political implications of Wedekind's literary polyglossia in his historical context, and the reasons for its final disappearance. In this way, Wedekind's early multilingualism appears as a major factor of his radical modernity around 1900.

International audience ; Today's theatre audience is rarely aware of the fact that Wedekind's Lulu was first conceived as a multilingual play. Indeed, the first version of his early masterpiece completed in 1894 under the title Die Büchse der Pandora, includes numerous and extensive passages in French and English. One of the reasons why the public as well as the critics and scholars generally ignore this fact is the complex process of censorship and self-censorship that gradually led the author to rework his play, eradicating in the same time it's multilingual dimension. While scholarly literature seldom mentions Wedekind's multilingual writing, this issue acquires a new importance in the context of current debates around world literature and migrant writing and needs to be reassessed. Thus, our paper aims at analyzing both the aesthetic and political implications of Wedekind's literary polyglossia in his historical context, and the reasons for its final disappearance. In this way, Wedekind's early multilingualism appears as a major factor of his radical modernity around 1900.

International audience ; Today's theatre audience is rarely aware of the fact that Wedekind's Lulu was first conceived as a multilingual play. Indeed, the first version of his early masterpiece completed in 1894 under the title Die Büchse der Pandora, includes numerous and extensive passages in French and English. One of the reasons why the public as well as the critics and scholars generally ignore this fact is the complex process of censorship and self-censorship that gradually led the author to rework his play, eradicating in the same time it's multilingual dimension. While scholarly literature seldom mentions Wedekind's multilingual writing, this issue acquires a new importance in the context of current debates around world literature and migrant writing and needs to be reassessed. Thus, our paper aims at analyzing both the aesthetic and political implications of Wedekind's literary polyglossia in his historical context, and the reasons for its final disappearance. In this way, Wedekind's early multilingualism appears as a major factor of his radical modernity around 1900.

International audience ; Today's theatre audience is rarely aware of the fact that Wedekind's Lulu was first conceived as a multilingual play. Indeed, the first version of his early masterpiece completed in 1894 under the title Die Büchse der Pandora, includes numerous and extensive passages in French and English. One of the reasons why the public as well as the critics and scholars generally ignore this fact is the complex process of censorship and self-censorship that gradually led the author to rework his play, eradicating in the same time it's multilingual dimension. While scholarly literature seldom mentions Wedekind's multilingual writing, this issue acquires a new importance in the context of current debates around world literature and migrant writing and needs to be reassessed. Thus, our paper aims at analyzing both the aesthetic and political implications of Wedekind's literary polyglossia in his historical context, and the reasons for its final disappearance. In this way, Wedekind's early multilingualism appears as a major factor of his radical modernity around 1900.