From: Chris Jones <ccjones-AT-turboweb.net.au>
Subject: Re: PLC: The classical,the romantic
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:42:36 +1100


hiya,

These formal distinctions between classicism, romanticism, modernism
and postmodernism interest me as a problem.

Fred had a good example with the translation of poetry, where
translation is seen as a way towards the universal but singularity
is forgotten, bracketed out and dismissed.


Fred wrote:
Antoine Berman focuses on the historical period in which translation 
became an instrument for constituting a literary universality, affirming 
"poetry as absolute". The translations (and translation programs) of the 
German romantics played an important part in creating what he calls a 
'generalized translation', where everything (regardless of its specific 
language, genre, form, or discipline) was thought of as translatable, 
transformable. But what was often lost in this process was the 
particularity, the materiality of the original, to a transcendent 
universality. This idea of 'universality' crushed everything local, 
dialectal, oral. The exteriority and difference of the original text - 
'the experience of the foreign' - was denied, and the materiality of the 
translation practice concealed.  


I have to ask: is the classic, romantic et al, system of
classification another type of universal thought? I think Alex
illustrates this. (See below) The historical specifics of Socrates
generalises into 19th Century thought. The contingency of history
becomes questionable, in this argument. History becomes a smooth
dialectical progression towards an Absolute ideal, and perhaps a
commonsense appropriation of Hegel. This is not to say there are not
links. When the categories of universalism are cleared the links are
there in their specific materiality, not as objects but as a type of
question: what can be done?

The other question I have to ask is: what are the affects (Spinoza's
affectus) of this type of thought. I can think of a link with genre.
The affect for writers and readers is a type of imperative. It may
then become an order to write and read in a classical way, a romantic
way, a modern way, a postmodern way, or to follow the prescriptions
of genre. A crime novel must be read and written in this way, for
example. The concept of generalisation has this affect on bodies. It
becomes a way to police literature and desire.

To be postmodern becomes prescriptive. Mixed genres are said to be
postmodern, for example. To be postmodern one must mix genres and
there is another prescriptiveness; one must be postmodern. To be
anti-romantic becomes the postmodernist cry. And cry they might.
Antiromanticism as a way to invest romanticism with something greater
than its historical contingency. But this time as a farce, a
botch-up. Antiromanticism becomes a way to insinuate the rebirth of
romanticism, the second (always second, never a third) coming of
spiritualism, a new romanticism. Postmodernism is now reactionary.

I come to these formal distinctions of Classicism et al from the
outside or a margin. I have no training in this type of criticism and
when I see it, I admire peoples ability to say this is romantic or
whatever. My undergrad degree was in communication; majors writing and
philosophy of culture, so this is the first time I have been able to
seriously discuss these issues. I say this to frame the above
comments as precisely that, and not an attack, for the sake of an
attack.

best wishes 
Chris Jones.

ps I have heard it said novelist should not read literary criticism.
Novelist can read what they damned well like!



On Sun, 03 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> Friends, 
> 
> Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I got no problem seeing Socrates
> as a romantic. No problem at all.
> 
> Alex Trifan
> Providence, RI
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---