Literary evolution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Literary evolution is a concept for explaining the development of literary history , which has its origin in the Russian formalism . It is characterized by the fact that it does not include any external influences (such as political, psychological or sociological) in its explanatory models, but rather derives the development of literature only from internal necessity. Important representatives of this concept were Yuri Tynyanow and Viktor Shklowski .

The basic concept of literary evolution

Within history, literature goes through a development during which it is constantly changing. This change is necessary because aesthetic stylistic devices “fade” over time, that is, they lose their novelty and originality and are then no longer recognized by the reader out of habit. As a result, they lose their functionality. Only new stylistic devices that deviate from the prevailing norm are able to attract the reader's attention; a change in forms is therefore necessary in order to enable the functions to continue. Schklowski uses the Russian term ostranenie to describe this change in shape and translates it into German as “alienation”, but it must not be confused with alienation in the sense of Bertolt Brecht , since the Russian formalists are only interested in aesthetic aspects.

Development of the concept by Tynjanow and Schklowski

Yuri Tynyanow, who was one of the first to use the term literary evolution, saw research into this phenomenon as the only way for literary studies to meet its own scientific claims. In his opinion, a mistake in earlier literary research was that it was oriented too much towards the form of literary "artifacts" (Russian priem ) and derived literary traditions from this that consisted of the continuation of these forms. For Tynyanov, however, this concept of tradition is an inadmissible abstraction. In his model of literary evolution, it is not the forms of the artistic devices themselves that are decisive, but the functions they have in a work. Literary artistic means cannot be viewed separately, but only in their contexts. Two different contexts are decisive here: firstly, each literary element fulfills a function within the work in which it appears, and secondly it fulfills a function within the history of literature. Every artistic device must therefore be analyzed with regard to its role within these two " systems " and can never be viewed in isolation.

From this point of view it follows for Tynyanow that external influences that have an effect on an author have no decisive influence: the elements of his work are arranged with a certain necessity that is linked to their functions. External influences can only have an effect if the prerequisites for this are already given in the work and within the history of literature. The intention of an author does not matter either, since it must also be subordinate to this necessity. This makes the concept of “creative freedom” impossible for Tynyanov.

Wiktor Schklowski argues a little less radically, who does not speak out against any significance of ideological influences on the part of the author, but only assumes that aesthetics take precedence. He stresses that any author's own idea would be useless if it were not subordinated to formal necessities. As evidence of the relative independence of literature from outside influences, both Tynyanov and Viktor Shklowski cite that many peoples have independently developed similar myths and stories. A literary term that is primarily based on cultural and social influences could not explain this fact.

reception

Criticism of the concept of literary evolution first came from the camp of Marxist literary theory , which violently contradicted the view that social influences had little - or no - influence on the development of literature. In his book Literature and Revolution, Leon Trotsky devoted an entire chapter to the critique of Russian formalism, in which the concept of literary evolution plays an important role. Trotsky recognizes the concept as a useful tool for the analysis of texts, but denies it the status of a fully-fledged theory, since it restricts the field of literary studies to statistical evaluations and descriptive analyzes and does not enable the development of a more far-reaching philosophy of art. He contradicted Tynyanow and Shklowski in that the similarity of myths and stories of different peoples was proof of their independence from social circumstances, and rather attributed them to cultural exchange.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Tynjanov (1967), p 44
  2. ↑ Erlich (1964), p. 281
  3. ↑ Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie (Ed. Ansgar Nünning), Metzler: Stuttgart / Weimar (1998), p. 552
  4. ↑ Tynjanov (1967), p. 38
  5. ↑ Tynjanov (1967), p 59
  6. ↑ Tynjanov (1967), p 48
  7. ↑ Tynjanov (1967), p 53
  8. ↑ Striedter (1989), p. 34
  9. ↑ Erlich (1964) p. 110
  10. ↑ Erlich (1964), p. 110ff.

literature

Primary texts

  • Jurij Tynjanov: The literary artistic means and the evolution in literature , Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main (1967)
  • Wiktor Schklowski: On the inequality of the similar in art , Hanser: München (1972)

Secondary texts