Diss.--Frankfurt am Main--Philosophisch-Theologische Hochschule St. Georgen, 1998. / Bibliogr. p. 452-508. Index.

No description available.

No description available.

Although Chris Kraus's I Love Dick has been largely read as autofictional or autotheoretical, I argue that its formal characteristics and innovations can be better understood by looking at seventeenth- and eighteenth-century precedents in the amatory epistolary genre. By examining the formal constraints that belong to the epistolary medium Kraus employed—requirements such as the "I" of the writer, the "you" of the receiver, and a desire for exchange—I show how she deploys epistolary tropes such as the woman in love as natural writer of letters, and the assumed truthful nature of such letters. These epistolary affordances and the ways in which I Love Dick uses and in part revises them allow Kraus to blur the line between reality and fiction, but more importantly allow her to achieve an expansion of the "I" of the writer through what I call her stalking method of writing. It is precisely in the process of writing and in the concomitant minimizing and objectifying of the "you" of the receiver that the expansion of the "I" occurs. / Master of Arts / Chris Kraus's first novel I Love Dick was published by Semiotext(e)'s Native Agent series in 1997, but it was upon its second edition in 2006, and after a television adaptation by Jill Soloway in 2017, that the novel found a larger audience. Since then, critics have mainly discussed I Love Dick in relation to the genre of autotheory and autofiction, and called it the urtext for a certain kind of North American female writing that relies heavily on real, personal experiences that undergo varying degrees of fictionalization. While these are valuable interpretations, my research aims to correct an oversight in the current discourse around I Love Dick. By situating the novel within the tradition of love letter writing in the female voice, I show how I Love Dick employs and revises the affordances of the epistolary medium in general, and of the amatory epistolary genre in particular. Through a close analysis both of I Love Dick and of other lesser-known essays and interviews, as well as an analysis of Kraus's precedents, both in the Native Agent's series that she edited in the 1990s and in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century amatory epistolary fiction, I reveal paradoxes that ultimately make I Love Dick a complex and ambiguous novel that defies simple categorizations.

Thesis (doctoral)--Technische Universität, Berlin, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 385-396).

Thesis (doctoral)--Technische Universität, Berlin, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 385-396).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Canterbury, 2006. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 207-216). Also available via the World Wide Web.

À l’ère de la spécialisation, des sciences sociales et de l’autonomisation de la littérature, la langue du polémiste s’attaque à « l’universel reportage » (Mallarmé). Les Cahiers de la quinzaine de Charles Péguy (1900-1914), la revue Die Fackel (le Flambeau) de Karl Kraus (1899-1936) et les « écrits divers » (zawen) des années 1920-1930 de Lu Xun représentent trois tentatives pour situer l’œuvre littéraire dans une frange critique de l’actualité, à distance du journalisme et du feuilleton. Le texte du polémiste est un discours sans autorisation sur les phénomènes politiques, sociaux et culturels de son temps. Il exalte un « je » souverain, qui porte le masque de Timon, de Thersite ou de Xing Tian, le combattant acéphale de la mythologie chinoise. Rejeté hors de la littérature ou du champ de la création par ses contemporains et par l’histoire littéraire, le polémiste perturbe les catégories génériques et l’idée même d’œuvre. La thèse propose de réinterroger le statut de l’œuvre polémique dans la littérature. Elle examine les différents lieux et temps d’inscription propres au polémiste (discours social, revue, recueil, œuvre complète, anthologie…) et tente de poser les jalons d’une poétique de la polémique. La constitution d’une telle poétique passe par la ressaisie des interdits relatifs à la polémique. Au polémiste, il est reproché de manquer de tact. La thèse inverse ce reproche en édifiant la catégorie paradoxale de « tact du polémiste », à partir de la pensée critique allemande en particulier (Walter Benjamin, Theodor W. Adorno). La parrêsia du polémiste n’est pas tant le tout-dire, qu’une certaine optique, un art de l’exagération et de la déformation : une souveraineté abusive sur le détail. La thèse ouvre sur l’enjeu de la mémoire de ces œuvres : les textes de polémistes deviennent des sismographes de la littérature mondiale, eux qui ne circulent pas facilement au-delà des frontières nationales et n’ont pas la lisibilité des fictions. / At a time of specialization of professions and autonomization of literature, the language of the polemicist attacks the “universal reportage” (Mallarmé). The Cahiers de la quinzaine of the French writer Charles Péguy (1900-1914), the anti-journal Die Fackel of the Viennese satirist Karl Kraus (1899-1936) and the “miscellaneous texts” (zawen) written by the Chinese author Lu Xun in the 1920s and 1930s represent three attempts to write a literary work on the fringes of the conventional categories of journalism or “feuilleton”. The text of the polemicist is a non-authorized discourse on current political, social and cultural events. It exalts a sovereign “I”, who wears the mask of Timon, Thersites or Xing Tian, the beheaded rebel in Chinese mythology. Rejected from literature by his contemporaries and literary history, the polemicist upsets the well-established literary categories as well as the understanding of what a writer’s work is.This thesis analyzes the different dimensions of the way the polemicist writes about his time (social discourse, magazines, collection, books, complete works, anthologies) and draws the outline of a poetic of the polemic. This attempt implies to reconsider what the literary tradition blames the polemicist for, especially his lack of “tact”. This blaming is here reversed, as we try to develop the paradoxical category of the “tact of the polemicist”, inspired by the German critical thinkers (Walter Benjamin, Th. W. Adorno). For the polemicist, the parrhesia does not consist in saying everything but rather in trying to find the right perspective. It is above all an art of exaggeration and distortion: a sovereign use and abuse of details. This thesis leads to the question of the memory of these works: while polemicists do not easily cross national borders and do not offer the readability of fictions, their texts paradoxically become a kind of seismograph of “world literature”.

This thesis is dealing with the work of the dramaturge, translator and the theatre theorist Karel Kraus (1920 - 2014). The activity of this author is presented gradually with an accent on the chronology and domains of his production, as well as on the most significant subjects in his works. The main purpose of this thesis is to characterize and summarize Kraus's work as a whole unit. And there are primary sources (writings of Kraus) which are used to accomplish this intention. While the unit of Kraus's works is described step by step, we are also getting familiarized with his way of writing and his attitude. The thesis is extended of a supplement which consists of the bibliography of the essays and articles by Karel Kraus in the period from 2000 to 2014.

No description available.