M.A. / The idea that parody can be used as an instrument of internal criticism and at the same time be a form of literary history is the point of departure for this study. By analysing and comparing the parody pendants of D.J. Opperman ("Met apologie" in Kuns-mis, 1964) and Johann Johl ("Dubbelloop: 'n pastiche" in Gewalste woord, 1990), the way in which parody functions as internal criticism and even as method of periodisation in literary history is examined. D.J. Opperman parodies the Afrikaans poets of the thirties. In the parodies he establishes a critical dialogue with these poets and their work by means of the intertextual nature of parody. Through these parodies he comments on each poet's oeuvre with regard to the mannerisms and personal style of writing apparent in their work by exaggeration and intentional ridicule. However, the parody does not only reduce the poet's work to a ridiculous level, but is also used as a vehicle of praise for the highlights in the poet's work. Furthermore, by restricting these parodies to the poets of the thirties and two of their successors of the forties, Opperman also establishes a kind of miniature literary history. One can deduce some aspects of the characteristics of the thirties poetry from these parodies. In the same way Johann Johl parodies the Afrikaans writers of the sixties and seventies. Here the critical dialogue is established on two levels. On the first level it serves as criticism on the work of D.J. Opperman and that done by the poets of the thirties by means of the intertextual relationship existing between the parody pendants. In doing so it compares and contrasts the renewal in Afrikaans literature by the poets of the thirties to the renewal brought by two writers of the sixties and seventies. In this study the focus will be on the writers of the sixties (Breyten Breytenbach and Etienne Leroux). On the second level it serves as criticism on the work of Breyten Breytenbach and Etienne Leroux as well as a form of miniature literary history of the writers of the sixties. Some characteristics of this period in the Afrikaans literature can be deduced from these parodies. The whole study is based on the statement made by Lyotard (Hutcheon, 1985:1) "Art forms have increasingly appeared to distrust external criticism to the extent that they have sought to incorporate critical commentary within their own structures in a kind of self-legitimizing short-circuit of the normal critical dialogue." From what has been said above, it is clear that parody may well be this "self-legitimizing short-circuit". The parodies analysed in this study are examples of parody being used as an internal instrument of criticism, thus incorporating critical commentary within art's own structures. Furthermore, due to its intertextual nature, parody also comments on the characteristics of (in this case) two important periods (the thirties and sixties) in the history of Afrikaans literature and therefore also serves as a kind of miniature literary history.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:uj/uj:2943 |
| Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Creators | Wucherpfennig, Camille Sue |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds