Suchergebnisse

This study (The Focuses of Attention in Lithuanian Literary Criticism (1991 – 2005), Marginalia, Canon of Analysis and Taboo) demonstrates the critical connection to Lithuanian science of literature and Lithuanian literary criticism. The attention is concentrated on traditional strategies of literary discursivity, which functioning is very intensive in our surroundings. Critic is directed over the "high literature canon", which is hegemonisated, absoluted, mistificated. Author is regarded as the important institute, which produces meanings – sytems of signification. These meanings are connected with the author as a transcendental subject. So traditional literary criticism lay a stress on the interflow of ethics and aesthetics. That is why value politics do not tolerate popculture, as if was felt longing for the former "general strategies", reasoning about historical monolithic, general limitings and meanings. The new (post)modern aesthetic experience surpasses the limits of aesthetics, established by the traditional Western metaphysics; so the limits of the contemporary aesthetics were considerably expanded and deprived of distinct determinations. But despite that traditional critics unflaggingly persist in the analysis of literature, predicated on hierarchical dualism. It's maintained, that there is ability to resist against such "uniting" position just creating self-critical discourses, modernly determinating the role of Lithuanian literature and culture. It's important to explane, which discourses help to appear for the new political / nationspaces, which models of the fetishistic discursivity limit them, narrow the disperse of general identities.

This study (The Focuses of Attention in Lithuanian Literary Criticism (1991 – 2005), Marginalia, Canon of Analysis and Taboo) demonstrates the critical connection to Lithuanian science of literature and Lithuanian literary criticism. The attention is concentrated on traditional strategies of literary discursivity, which functioning is very intensive in our surroundings. Critic is directed over the "high literature canon", which is hegemonisated, absoluted, mistificated. Author is regarded as the important institute, which produces meanings – sytems of signification. These meanings are connected with the author as a transcendental subject. So traditional literary criticism lay a stress on the interflow of ethics and aesthetics. That is why value politics do not tolerate popculture, as if was felt longing for the former "general strategies", reasoning about historical monolithic, general limitings and meanings. The new (post)modern aesthetic experience surpasses the limits of aesthetics, established by the traditional Western metaphysics; so the limits of the contemporary aesthetics were considerably expanded and deprived of distinct determinations. But despite that traditional critics unflaggingly persist in the analysis of literature, predicated on hierarchical dualism. It's maintained, that there is ability to resist against such "uniting" position just creating self-critical discourses, modernly determinating the role of Lithuanian literature and culture. It's important to explane, which discourses help to appear for the new political / nationspaces, which models of the fetishistic discursivity limit them, narrow the disperse of general identities.

The dissertation is based on data about almos 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers

The dissertation is based on data about almost 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers.

The dissertation is based on data about almost 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers.

The dissertation is based on data about almos 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers

The dissertation is based on data about almost 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers.

The dissertation is based on data about almos 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers

The dissertation is based on data about almost 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers.

The dissertation is based on data about almos 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers

The paper deals with the reception of Tomas Venclova's works in the articles and reviews by Rimvydas Šilbajoris. This literary critic has discussed almost all Venclova's books of different genres: poetry, translations, scholarly books, and press publications. Šilbajoris significantly contributed to the popularization of Lithuanian literature abroad (he was a permanent reviewer for World Literature Today) and was an exacting critic of Lithuanian texts in the context of world literature. According both to Šilbajoris and the reseachers that explore his works, his methodological approach refers to structuralism, New Criticism, and Juri Lotman's attitude. However, an explicit analysis of Šilbajoris' articles on Venclova reveals that the critic did not have a coherent methodological system. With the zeal of a political publicist, rather often he has deviated from the literary work under investigation, sometimes was inconsequent and inattentive. As a reviewer, Šilbajoris was critical of Venclova's translations (the critic and the translator had different approaches), but put much value upon his poetry and scholarly works.

The paper deals with the reception of Tomas Venclova's works in the articles and reviews by Rimvydas Šilbajoris. This literary critic has discussed almost all Venclova's books of different genres: poetry, translations, scholarly books, and press publications. Šilbajoris significantly contributed to the popularization of Lithuanian literature abroad (he was a permanent reviewer for World Literature Today) and was an exacting critic of Lithuanian texts in the context of world literature. According both to Šilbajoris and the reseachers that explore his works, his methodological approach refers to structuralism, New Criticism, and Juri Lotman's attitude. However, an explicit analysis of Šilbajoris' articles on Venclova reveals that the critic did not have a coherent methodological system. With the zeal of a political publicist, rather often he has deviated from the literary work under investigation, sometimes was inconsequent and inattentive. As a reviewer, Šilbajoris was critical of Venclova's translations (the critic and the translator had different approaches), but put much value upon his poetry and scholarly works.

Engl. Zsfassung u.d.T.: The language and the art of it

Exactly 200 years ago, from 1811 to 1819, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, one of the most famous English Romantic poets, held a series of influential lectures about William Shakespeare and his plays. His presentation of "Hamlet", a play hitherto not only negatively appraised, but even viewed quite negatively by the leading critics, most notably Samuel Johnson, was especially significant. His insightful analysis helped to change the general opinion about the play, and pointed to the qualities of "Hamlet" that made it into perhaps the best known and most frequently played drama in the next 200 years. In this paper, I examine the way Coleridge was able to recognise the neglected features of Shakespeare's profound tragedy up to that point. First of all, he identified with the main protagonist of the play, the Prince of Denmark, and described the unbridgeable gap between ambitions and power of imagination on the one hand, and inability to act on the other. Like Hamlet, Coleridge had \"great, enormous, intellectual activity, and a consequent proportionate aversion to real action\" (Coleridge 2014: 345). Aware of this shortcoming, but unable to correct it, the extremely talented and educated Coleridge presented it in fascinating detail. Secondly, he used his knowledge of the most influential contemporary philosophers, especially Kant, Locke and Hobbes, and the increasingly popular psychological approach to character analysis in order to paint an internal portrait of leading characters of the play. Due to the increasingly popular trend in recent literary theory and analysis focusing on the political and material context of an art work, the universal qualities of Coleridge's intepretation of "Hamlet" that contributed to the lasting influence of his critique have been largely neglected. This article intends, therefore, to re-establish the significance of Coleridge's "Hamlet" lectures

Exactly 200 years ago, from 1811 to 1819, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, one of the most famous English Romantic poets, held a series of influential lectures about William Shakespeare and his plays. His presentation of "Hamlet", a play hitherto not only negatively appraised, but even viewed quite negatively by the leading critics, most notably Samuel Johnson, was especially significant. His insightful analysis helped to change the general opinion about the play, and pointed to the qualities of "Hamlet" that made it into perhaps the best known and most frequently played drama in the next 200 years. In this paper, I examine the way Coleridge was able to recognise the neglected features of Shakespeare's profound tragedy up to that point. First of all, he identified with the main protagonist of the play, the Prince of Denmark, and described the unbridgeable gap between ambitions and power of imagination on the one hand, and inability to act on the other. Like Hamlet, Coleridge had \"great, enormous, intellectual activity, and a consequent proportionate aversion to real action\" (Coleridge 2014: 345). Aware of this shortcoming, but unable to correct it, the extremely talented and educated Coleridge presented it in fascinating detail. Secondly, he used his knowledge of the most influential contemporary philosophers, especially Kant, Locke and Hobbes, and the increasingly popular psychological approach to character analysis in order to paint an internal portrait of leading characters of the play. Due to the increasingly popular trend in recent literary theory and analysis focusing on the political and material context of an art work, the universal qualities of Coleridge's intepretation of "Hamlet" that contributed to the lasting influence of his critique have been largely neglected. This article intends, therefore, to re-establish the significance of Coleridge's "Hamlet" lectures