Suchergebnisse

Sartre and Nizan, politique of words The aim of this article is to discuss and compare the main points of Nizan's and Sartre's views of committed literature. Discarding the claim to be objective and neutral, Nizan states that to abstain is to make a choice. Therefore, he critiques the intellectuals to be guilty of an abdication of responsibility. In his writings (specially Antoine Bloyé [1933], The Trojan Horse [1935], The Conspiracy [1938]) Nizan posed some questions, which became crucial for the postwar debates on the engagement of the intellectual. These questions constitute a central aspect of Sartre's writings after World War II, where Sartre criticizes writers who had not taken a stance against oppression and delineates the axes of a theory of committed literature. As a result of the comparative analysis between the two authors, it is shown that Sartre articulates an important point that Nizan have missed, namely that there is a praxis, which is specific to literature and that we should part from it in order to understand commitment. Thus, at the difference of Nizan, Sartre points out that the liberating dimension of literary criticism should not be too quickly confused with armed criticism.

Sartre and Nizan, politique of words The aim of this article is to discuss and compare the main points of Nizan's and Sartre's views of committed literature. Discarding the claim to be objective and neutral, Nizan states that to abstain is to make a choice. Therefore, he critiques the intellectuals to be guilty of an abdication of responsibility. In his writings (specially Antoine Bloyé [1933], The Trojan Horse [1935], The Conspiracy [1938]) Nizan posed some questions, which became crucial for the postwar debates on the engagement of the intellectual. These questions constitute a central aspect of Sartre's writings after World War II, where Sartre criticizes writers who had not taken a stance against oppression and delineates the axes of a theory of committed literature. As a result of the comparative analysis between the two authors, it is shown that Sartre articulates an important point that Nizan have missed, namely that there is a praxis, which is specific to literature and that we should part from it in order to understand commitment. Thus, at the difference of Nizan, Sartre points out that the liberating dimension of literary criticism should not be too quickly confused with armed criticism.

Der Beitrag untersucht das politische und literarische Wirken P. Nizans im Vergleich zu E. Toller. Der Verfasser verweist auf Unterschiede in der Generation und im sozialen Milieu bei beiden Protagonisten. Tollers Revolte gegen die bestehende Gesellschaft wird dadurch charakterisiert, daß sie sofort eine politische Dimension und später eine humanitäre Wendung erreichte, während die Revolte Nizans aus einer inneren Notwendigkeit erfolgte und erst nach einiger Zeit zum Eintritt in die kommunistische Partei führte. Beiden gemeinsam ist die moralische Solidarität und das Engagement für eine Verwirklichung des Sozialismus. Große Bedeutung hat im Werk beider Schriftsteller die Thematik Verrat und Tod. Während Nizan nach seinem Tod zum Idealtyp des engagierten Künstlers und Intellektuellen wird, gerät Toller in Vergessenheit. Nizans Werk ist frei von Parteiästhetik, sein Bruch mit der kommunistischen Partei 1939 entspricht seinem Streben nach einem kompromißlosen Kommunismus. (KIL)

Une analyse du reportage de voyage Sindobod Toçikiston de Paul Nizan, publié en 1935 dans la revue Europe, montre que le lien entre récit de voyage et idéologie n'est pas de l'ordre du pur reflet, même à une époque de grande influence politique sur le champ littéraire. Dans le cas du récit de Nizan, le discours marxiste, clairement présent à un premier niveau, est complexifié par des thématiques existentielles qui peuvent être expliquées d'une part par la place de Nizan dans le monde littéraire français de l'époque, d'autre part en les replaçant dans l'œuvre de l'écrivain. Abstract An analysis of Sindobod Toçikiston, the travel narrative Paul Nizan published in the journal Europe in 1935, shows that travel narrative is not a simple reflection of ideology, even in a time of great political impact on the literary field. In Nizan's narrative, marxist discourse, clearly present on a first level, is made more complex by existential themes that can be explained by Nizan's position in the French literary field at the time and also by replacing them in the whole work of the author.