II. THE WEAK ONTOLOGY OF THE LITERARY WORK
Introduction The specter of “weakness” – in the figurative sense – has been circulating in literary theory for some time. This metaphor has been used here in two basic contexts: 1) the ontology of the literary work itself, and 2) ways of knowing and describing it. Ryszard Nycz has used the term in the first context.187 In his understanding, the “weakness” of form of the modern (and especially postmodern) literary work is based on a loosening of its generic markers and, in particular, on a strong intertextualization that serves to weaken the traditional markers of the work itself, such as coherence, wholeness, and completion. Intertextuality takes on particular meaning in this context. On the one hand, it locates the literary work within the space of tradition (contrary to the avant-garde postulate of absolute novelty) and restores a historical dimension. On the other hand, it bases the work-tradition relation not on the classical trope of imitation of a model, but rather on diverse practices of copying, parodying and pastiching – close to the concept of Verwindung as understood by Heidegger and Vattimo. Anna Burzyńska, meanwhile, distinguishes strong theories based on modern epistemology from weak theories, which she claims are closer to pragmatism: “The questioning of epistemological fundamentalism – in this case in literary knowledge the rejection of the parameters of modern theory (universality, objectivity, cognitive neutrality and metalinguistics) – also brought to literary studies very clear pragmatist tendencies and resulted particularly in ‘weak’ theories of reading (the plural here is, of course, not without significance)...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.