No description available.

No description available.

<p>У раду је представљен најзначајнији део<br />књижевног опуса Николаја Тимченка,<br />књижевног историчара и критичара, есејисте<br />и филозофа и указано је на вредност,<br />домете и актуелност његове мисли о српској<br />књижевности 20. века.</p> / <p>U radu je predstavljen najznačajniji deo<br />književnog opusa Nikolaja Timčenka,<br />književnog istoričara i kritičara, esejiste<br />i filozofa i ukazano je na vrednost,<br />domete i aktuelnost njegove misli o srpskoj<br />književnosti 20. veka.</p> / <p>The work presents the most important part of<br />the literary opus of Nikolai Timchenko, literary<br />historian and critic, essayist and philosopher,<br />and points to the value, reach and actuality of his<br />thought on Serbian literature of the 20th century.</p>

This thesis is a cultural history of the early Fabian Society, focusing on the decades between 1884, the Society’s inaugural year, and 1914. The canonical view is that ‘Fabianism,’ which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as the ‘doctrine and principles of the Fabian Society,’ is synonymous with State socialism and bureaucratic ‘efficiency.’ By bringing the methods of cultural history to bear on the Society’s founding members and decades, this thesis reveals that ‘Fabianism’ was in fact used as a dynamic metonymy, not a fixed doctrine, which signified a range of cultural, and even literary, meanings for British commentators in the 1890s and 1900s (Part 1). Further, by expanding the scope of traditional histories of the Fabian Society, which conventionally operate within political and economic sub-fields and focus on the Society’s ‘official’ literature, to include a close examination of the broader discursive context in which ‘Fabianism’ came into being, this thesis sets out to recover the symbolic aspects of the Fabians’ efforts to negotiate what ‘Fabianism’ meant to the English reading public. The Fabians’ conspicuous leadership in the modern education debates and the liberal fight for a ‘free stage,’ and their solidarity with the international political émigrés living in London at the turn of the twentieth century all contribute to this revised perspective on who the founding Fabians were, what they saw themselves as trying to achieve, and where the Fabian Society belonged—and was perceived to belong—in relation to British politics, culture, and society (Part 2). The original contribution of this thesis is the argument that the Fabians explicitly and implicitly evoked Matthew Arnold as a precursor in their efforts to articulate a kind of Fabian—latterly social-democratic—liberalism and a public vocation that balanced English liberties and the duty of the State to provide the ‘best’ for its citizens in education and in culture, as in politics.

This diploma thesis mainly deals with the relationships between the poetic manifestations of socialist realism and so called total realism in the early fifties. The first part focuses on general issues; within it I try to describe characteristic features of both poetics, for total realism it is done mostly in the background of comparison with like-minded concepts (Hrabal's poems from the fifties, the works of former members of Group 42). In other chapters of the text I am thinking about a total realism from two aspects: first, as an alternative form of realism, which defines itself against the official art, as well as a program that is dependent on the official art to some extent by paraphrasing or using some of its means and resources.

La Fantasy est aujourd’hui l’un des genres majeurs des littératures de l’Imaginaire et l’un des plus prolifiques. Revendiquant le statut de littérature mythique de notre époque, elle puise ostensiblement son inspiration dans les récits mythologiques et les contes tout en organisant la majorité de ses récits autour d’une quête centrale. Celle-ci, parce qu’elle ne cesse de ressurgir dans les espaces-temps de la Fantasy, parce qu’elle implique toujours des êtres surnaturels mythiques associés aux commencements du monde, à l’instar des Elfes, et parce que, racontée au passé, elle devient objet d’un récit renvoyant à un passé disparu, fonctionne comme un véritable mythe du genre.Le présent ouvrage vise à étudier plus avant ce mythe questuel de la Fantasy afin d’en dégager les constantes et de mettre à jour les thématiques privilégiées par le genre. À travers l’analyse comparative du «Seigneur des Anneaux» et du «Silmarillion» de J.R.R. Tolkien, du cycle de «Terremer» d’Ursula K. Le Guin et du roman «La Glace et la Nuit. Opus un – Nigredo» de Léa Silhol, l’étude replace le mythe questuel de la Fantasy dans l’histoire littéraire et souligne, sous sa gangue faussement archaïque, la modernité du genre et sa pertinence comme discours sur la condition humaine. / Fantasy is now one of the major literary genres of imaginative fiction and one of the most prolific. Claiming to be the mythic literature of our time, it is mainly inspired by mythological narratives and fairy-tales, and it often organises its stories around a central quest. Since that quest constantly reappears in Fantasy space-times, often implies mythic supernatural beings, such as Elves, and becomes the object of a tale about a lost past, it functions as a genuine myth inside the genre.The present study intents to analyse the Fantasy quest myth in order to highlight its main aspects, and, through them, the favourite themes of Fantasy fiction. Through the comparative analysis of J.R.R. Tolkien’s «The Lord of the Rings» and «The Silmarillion», Ursula K. Le Guin’s «Earthsea Series» and Léa Silhol’s «La Glace et la Nuit. Opus un – Nigredo», the Fantasy quest myth is replaced in the literary history. Besides the analysis shows that, despite its apparent archaic aspects, Fantasy fiction is a modern genre and a relevant discourse about human condition.

Cette thèse remet en question le soupçon pesant sur les catégories de « classique » et « classicisme ». Centrales dans les manuels, ces notions sont pourtant renvoyées par les spécialistes à de purs anachronismes, et jugées impertinentes pour caractériser le XVIIe siècle et sa littérature. Marqués par la rhétorique et la sociologie historique, les travaux actuels écartent l’opposition idéologique entre classicisme et modernité. Mais l’analyse de l’antagonisme chez Barthes, et l’étude des querelles impliquant les Classiques de 1898 à 1966, permettent de donner un contenu inattendu au classicisme, très éloigné de l’irénisme dont on l’a accusé.La notion, son antonyme et ses parasynonymes (antimodernisme et post-classicisme) circonscrivent d’abord, pour la littérature, différents « régimes d’historicité » dont débattent les polémistes. Le terme reste également associé à l’élaboration d’un « dispositif » utopique, où écrire, critiquer et enseigner iraient de pair : cette configuration, essentielle au XVIIe siècle, est sans cesse « remise sur le métier » dans les querelles postérieures entre Anciens et Modernes. De 1666 à 1694, semblent surgir en réalité la plupart des questions que les critiques continueront de poser à la littérature. C’est le cas, notamment, chez Barthes, Gide et Valéry, quand ils cherchent à en déterminer les fonctions et les prérogatives. Parce que le concept d’autonomie n’est pas pour eux détaché de toute exemplarité, il s’avère utile, bien qu’anachronique, pour lire les textes du XVIIe siècle. L’art de la « disponibilité », que Barthes reconnaissait chez Racine, serait alors l’autre nom de la littérarité, le nom d’une littérarité autre – non formaliste – que les Classiques auraient bel et bien inventée et qui autoriserait leur lecture « vivante, concernée ». / This dissertation interrogates the scepticism that falls on the categories of “classics” and “classicism”. Though they are considered key concepts in textbooks, these notions are viewed by many specialists as pure anachronisms, and declared irrelevant in defining the 17th century and its literature. Drawing influences from rhetoric and historical sociology, recent work dismisses the ideological divide between classicism and modernity, but an analysis of this opposition in Barthes’s corpus, supported by a study of the quarrels involving the Classics from 1898 to 1966, endows classicism with an unheralded substance, far from the irenicism for which it has been condemned. The notion of classicism, its antonym, and its parasynonyms (anti-modernism and post-classicism) first and foremost delineate, as far as literature is concerned, different regimes of historicity that are debated by the polemicists. The term ‘classicism’ is continuously associated with the establishment of a utopian apparatus within which writing, criticism and teaching go hand in hand. This blueprint was essential in the 17th century and is revisited again and again in the subsequent quarrels between Ancients and Moderns. In fact, most of the questions that critics continue to ask literature seem to arise between 1666 and 1694. Case in point, Barthes, Gide and Valéry all sought answers to these age-old questions in their attempts to determine both the functions and the prerogatives of literature. According to them, the concept of autonomy in literature cannot be separated from exemplarity. Thus, it proves useful, although anachronistic, in the reading of 17th-century texts. The art of “availability”, which Barthes recognized in the works of Racine, would then be the other name of literariness, a distinct – non formalist – literariness that the Classics have invented which allows their “vital, concerned” reading.

This dissertation asserts that the tortuous relationship Spanish American literature had with cosmopolitanism since the Wars of Independence reached a turning point towards the end of the second half of the twentieth century. While the literary production of the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century was centred on the Spanish American nation and the continent, contemporary literature has become increasingly deterritorialized, and has begun to present narrative worlds and discuss issues that transcend this circumscribed universe. The discerning of this articulation of global issues in contemporary literature – which I contend is predicated on the concept of cosmopolitanism – is the primary objective of this investigation. The five novels examined here are Elena Poniatowska’s La “Flor de Lis” (1988), Mario Vargas Llosa’s El Paraíso en la otra esquina (2003) and El sueño del celta (2010), and Jorge Volpi’s El fin de la locura (2003) and No será la Tierra (2006). This study aims to describe and assess an evolving perspective on the treatment of cosmopolitanism in Spanish America. I trace the shift from the previous generations’ main preoccupation with aesthetic cosmopolitanism, which sought to engage Latin American literary discourse with the Western canon, to what I identify as the current political implication of the concept. To this end, I show that whereas mid-twentieth century authors displaced cosmopolitanism in favour of more politically expedient concepts, authors now plot it in their novels as a means of discussing issues of identity and citizenship in an increasingly globalized world.

This paper examines the expansive history of literary tomboys in the century preceding Louisa May Alcott's Little Women (1868). Applying concepts from gender performativity theory, it explores earlier and previously overlooked portrayals of tomboys (or, alternatively, "hoydens" or "romps"), especially in Richard Brinsley Sheridan's A Trip to Scarborough (1777), Isaac Bickerstaffe's The Romp; A Comic Opera in Two Acts (1786), Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey (1817), and E.D.E.N. Southworth's The Hidden Hand (1859). Because the tomboy phenomenon emphasizes that gender roles must be learned and can be resisted, tomboy characters are implicitly making a feminist point. As such, in the gap between Austen and Southworth, texts with minor and derogatory mentions of tomboys connect tomboyism with the prevailing anti-feminism of the early nineteenth century. By examining the developmental arc of tomboyism throughout literature and culture, this essay develops a greater understanding of how tomboyism fits within different historical periods and was a fully recognizable type in Britain and America decades before Alcott's Jo March supposedly normalized it in popular culture.

This dissertation is an examination of the interiority of American authorship from 1815–1866, an era of political, social, and economic instability in the United States. Without a well-defined historical narrative or an established literary lineage, writers drew upon death and the American landscape as tropes of unity and identification in an effort to define the nation and its literary future. Instead of representing nationalism or collectivism, however, the authors in this study drew on landscapes and death to mediate the crises of authorial displacement through what I term "xenotopia," strange places wherein a venerated American landscape has been disrupted or defamiliarized and inscribed with death or mourning. As opposed to the idealized settings of utopia or the environmental degradation of dystopia, which reflect the positive or negative social currents of a writer's milieu, xenotopia record the contingencies and potential problems that have not yet played out in a nation in the process of self-definition. Beyond this, however, xenotopia register as an assertion of agency and literary definition, a way to record each writer's individual and psychological experience of authorship while answering the call for a new definition of American literature in an indeterminate and undefined space.